You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

September 4, 2023

Vietnam: Film Music Copyright Case Raises Questions

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

With Vietnam’s entertainment industry booming, the demand for music to be used in films and video games has sharply increased. Sometimes a song featured in a movie’s soundtrack can become as popular as the movie itself.

In order to use a song in a film, the producer of the film will typically need to enter into an agreement with the owner of a copyrighted work to have permission to use that work – with an agreed amount of royalty. Otherwise, their use could be considered a copyright infringement. However, what happens if the producer enters into an agreement with a song’s purported copyright owner, only to later find that such person does not really own the song entirely? A recent high-profile case in Vietnam brought this issue to light.

The Dispute and Court Rulings

The film “Face Off 4 – The Walking Guests,” financed and produced by Ly Hai Promotion Co., Ltd (“Ly Hai”) premiered in April 2019, and soon became a big success. In this film, Ly Hai used a song called “Ganh Me” on the basis of a March 2019 contract to use the song signed with the musician Quach Beem, who was recognized as the song owner in a copyright certificate issued on 24 April 2019 by the Copyright Office of Vietnam (COV).

The dispute arose in November 2019 when an individual named Truong Minh Nhat discovered that the lyrics of “Ganh Me” were almost identical to a poem he had written and posted on his Facebook page in June 2014, well before the COV had issued the copyright certificate to Quach Beem. Mr. Nhat initiated a lawsuit against two defendants, Quach Beem and Ly Hai, for copyright infringement.

In his petition, Mr. Nhat requested the court to, among other things, recognize him as the author and owner of the lyrics of “Ganh Me” and order Quach Beem to correct false information in the copyright certificate and compensate for damages. Mr. Nhat also requested the court to order Ly Hai to stop using “Ganh Me” on all media and platforms until the effective date of the court verdict; to publish an apology in mass media for using his poem without permission and providing incorrect information about its author; to name him as the author and owner of the song lyrics in the film and all related articles and posts; and to compensate for damages.

In April 2022, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City issued its first-instance verdict, recognizing that the plaintiff is the author and owner of the poem “Ganh Me” and that the act of registering a copyright for the song “Ganh Me,” containing his poem as lyrics, was an act of appropriating copyright to the plaintiff’s poem. The court then accepted the plaintiff’s claims against Quach Beem, including a part of the claim for damages.

Regarding Ly Hai, the court ruled that the company’s use of the song in its film on the basis of a contract with the musician was in good faith, so it rejected almost all of the plaintiff’s claims, except the request that the plaintiff be credited as the writer of the song lyrics in the film and other related articles and posts.

The first-instance verdict was appealed by Quach Beem, but was affirmed in June 2023 by the HCMC High Court.

Different Opinions on the Rulings

Article 133.2 of Vietnam’s Civil Code 2015 provides a mechanism for protecting a bona fide third party in civil transactions: “in cases where a civil transaction is void but the transacted property is registered at authorities and then transferred through another transaction to a bona fide third party, and this party relies on that registration to proceed with the transaction, such transaction shall be valid.” In such case, while the owner of a property can request the party at fault to refund appropriate expenses and compensate for damages, it has no right to reclaim the property from the bona fide third party. However, there is neither further guidance on Article 133.2 nor a specific definition of “bona fide third party” under Vietnamese law.

In the first-instance verdict, the HCMC Court ruled that Ly Hai’s use of the song was in good faith, but without specifying that it was a “bona fide third party” or providing clear legal grounds for its rulings. Thus, the verdict raised different opinions from lawyers and practitioners.

Many view that Ly Hai could not be viewed as a bona fide third party to enjoy protection under Article 133.2 because there was only a single transaction—the one between Quach Beem and Ly Hai. Without “another transaction,” there could be no third party and, as a result, the plaintiff is entitled to request the court to declare the contract between Quach Beem and Ly Hai void due to Quach Beem’s misrepresentation. In addition, under Vietnam’s IP Law, any use of copyrighted works without the owner’s permission, outside of specified permissible exceptions, would be considered infringement, so Ly Hai should bear liability for infringement charges as requested by the plaintiff.

In contrast, others argue that it is unnecessary to have more than one transaction to determine a bona fide third party. If the transacted property is registered with an authority, and a party relies on such registration to proceed with a civil transaction, this transaction is valid. As a result, such party would be viewed as a bona fide third party and can rely on Article 133.2 to protect its right and benefits. The first two parties would be the other party in the transaction and the true owner of the transacted property. It appears that the HCMC courts ruled on the dispute in line with this latter view.

Recommendations

The controversies above stem from having no clear definition of “bona fide third party” or guidelines on the conditions for protection of a bona fide third party in Vietnamese law. Thus, such matters need to be quickly guided or addressed by a Supreme Court resolution or precedent to ensure the consistent application by the lower courts in practice, so businesses feel safer in their operations in Vietnam.

Until those documents are issued, businesses are recommended to consult lawyers in Vietnam seeking advice for well-prepared contracts to minimize the relevant risk.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 21, 2024
Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression
Read More
October 20, 2024
The annual statistics issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (“IP Office”) in recent years show an increase in the number of IP transactions and applications to establish IP rights, including requests for the recordal of assignment of IP rights. Nevertheless, the numbers of trademark assignment recordals approved by the IP Office has not followed this trend, falling from 1,281 requests approved in 2022 to 1,120 requests approved in 2023. This decrease may be due to the IP Office’s overly strict viewpoint in approving trademark assignments, including its rejection of assignment recordal on the ground of conflict with the assignor’s trade name. IP Office’s practice on assignment recordal Vietnam’s IP Law restricts the assignment of trademarks in several cases, as set out in Article 139.4 that “the assignment of the rights to marks must not cause confusion as to properties or origins of goods or services bearing such marks.” Thus, when an assigned mark is identical to the dominant element of the assignor’s company name, the IP Office will view that the assignee’s use of the mark will result in confusion with the assignor’s trade name, and then instantly reject the assignment request. In this case, the IP Office will only accept the assignment if the IP holder can submit documents issued by relevant authorities proving at least one of the following conditions: The assignor has assigned all business premises and operations under its name to the assignee; The assignor has removed business lines relating to the goods/services bearing the trademarks and such removal is recorded in the Enterprise Registration Certificate; The assignor has been dissolved or does not exist after signing the agreement; The assignor has changed its name after signing the agreement so that it does not contain any element identical or similar to the assigned
Read More
October 7, 2024
Starting October 15, 2024, Cambodia will implement a new penalty for late patent annuity payments and restorations, according to an unofficial announcement from the country’s Department of Industrial Property under the Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology, and Innovation. This new penalty will apply to patents, utility model certificates, and plant variety protection registrations. To avoid additional charges and prevent the abandonment of any pending applications or the lapse of registrations, applicants and registration owners must pay each annuity within the six months before the annuity period starts, or by its due date. If the annuity is not paid by the due date, a grace period of six months is allowed for late payment, with a daily charge of KHR 500 (approximately USD 0.125) per day. If payment is not made within this grace period, the patent will be deemed withdrawn or will lapse. However, the Patent Office can initiate the restoration process within the last six months of the annuity period. This requires a USD 25 restoration fee plus an additional daily charge of USD 0.125 from the start of the grace period until payment is completed. To avoid additional charges and prevent the potential abandonment of applications or registrations, companies and their appointees need to keep track of all annuity due dates for patents, utility model certificates, and plant variety protection registrations and pay all annuities well in advance of the due date. For more details on this penalty, or on any aspect of intellectual property protection in Cambodia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More
October 3, 2024
Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property team, under the guidance of Darani Vachanavuttivong, managing partner and managing director of the firm’s intellectual property department, have contributed an update to Thomson Reuters Practical Law’s Intellectual Property Rights in Thailand: Overview guide for 2024. This guide provides a comprehensive overview of intellectual property (IP) laws in Thailand, covering key areas such as patents, trademarks, copyright, trade secrets, and registered designs. It also addresses the enforcement of these rights, as well as the procedures for registering patents, trademarks, and other IP protections. The Thailand chapter outlines important aspects of IP law, including: The conditions and procedures for obtaining patents and registered designs, including the different types of patent protection available. Legal requirements for registering trademarks, including what constitutes a distinctive and legally protectable mark. The scope of copyright protection and the rights granted to creators of original works, including economic and moral rights. Protection of trade secrets and confidential information under the Trade Secrets Act, which safeguards valuable business information. This guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners and businesses seeking to understand the nuances of Thailand’s IP landscape. To explore the latest version of Intellectual Property Rights in Thailand: Overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More