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

January 24, 2024

Vietnam’s Public Domain – Digging the Gold Mine with Care

Managing Intellectual Property

Mickey Mouse (or, rather, a specific early version of the iconic Disney character) famously entered the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2024, almost 100 years after his 1928 debut in the short film Steamboat Willie. Mickey’s arrival highlighted the increasingly wide annual observance of “Public Domain Day”—the day when creative works enter the public domain for the first time, after the expiration of their copyright terms. This date, however, is not international, and depends on the copyright laws of each country. In Vietnam, Mickey Mouse had been in the public domain for years.

Vietnam’s public domain regime

Under Vietnam’s IP Law, the duration of copyright protection for moral rights is indefinite, except for rights to publish the works, which, together with economic rights, have a protection term of 75 years from first publication for cinematographic works, photography, applied art, and anonymous works. When these works are not published within 25 years from the date of their creation, the protection term is 100 years from the date of creation. For anonymous works, the protection term is determined when information about the author becomes available. For other types of copyrighted works (such as literary and musical works), following the Berne Convention, the protection term is for the life of the author and 50 years after the author’s death. Works for which the terms of protection have expired belong to the public. Everyone is entitled to use such works but must respect the moral rights of the authors.

According to these regulations, Steamboat Willie and two other 1928 Mickey Mouse shorts, which are regarded as cinematographic works, have been in the public domain in Vietnam since 2003. This means that, for the past 21 years, anyone could legally copy, publish or distribute those shorts in Vietnam, and could also make derivative works from them — including prequels, sequels, spinoffs, and remakes using this particular version of the Mickey Mouse character.

The public domain privilege also largely benefits other type of works in Vietnam. Vietnamese publisher Dong A, for example, has introduced the Classic Literature bookshelf (Dong A Classics) with the release of 26 famous world-classic books that have come into the public domain, such as Tom Sawyer and Treasure Island. Other publishing houses and websites releasing e-books have taken advantage of the public domain to reissue works with expired copyrights, which can be gold mines for publishers. However, these gold miners should be careful when digging such precious ore, or they could face challenges to their claim.

Risk of infringing author’s moral rights

Article 19 of the IP Law lists the moral rights of authors, in which one controversial regulation is the right to “Protect the integrity of their works, and prevent others from modifying, mutilating or distorting their works in any form prejudicial to their honor and reputation.” As this moral right is protected perpetually and is non-transferable, the action of modifying a work, even after the protection term has expired, may still constitute infringement.

However, in practice, it is often difficult to determine whether a modification is “mutilating or distorting their works in any form prejudicial to their honor and reputation.” Proving the value of the works themselves is burdensome because there are no common criteria for evaluation. The evaluation of literary and artistic works is mainly based on each person’s subjective perspective.

Complications of derivative works

In addition to the copyright owned by the author, there are also rights to derivative works, which may still be valid. Therefore, even if an original work falls into the public domain, use of its derivative works may still constitute infringement.

Confusion can be caused when the copyright to a song (i.e., sheet music) has come into the public domain, but the related rights of a recording of such song are still in force. In 2021, before an AFF Cup soccer match between Vietnam and Laos, the viewing audience was surprised (and angry) when the Vietnamese national anthem “Tien Quan Ca” was muted on a streaming channel “due to copyright reasons.” It is commonly known that the song (including both music and lyrics) was donated by the family of the late musician Van Cao to the people of Vietnam. The song is in the public domain and anyone can record it or make derivative works from it. However, the reason behind this incident laid in the fact that the recording of “Tien Quan Ca” used in the match was produced and owned by foreign record label Marco Polo, and was still protected under copyright laws.

In contrast, when derivative works are made from works that have already entered the public domain, such as folk-art paintings, their creators can face an uphill climb defending their creations from copycat infringers, as anyone is free to derive works from the same source material and the creativity of the works will be difficult to assess.

Different protection terms in different countries

Because the copyright protection term of works can be different from country to country, use of works from foreign authors/right owners must be handled with extra caution.

For example, the American writer and presenter Dale Carnegie, author of the famous self-help book How to Win Friends and Influence People (Vietnamese title Dac Nhan Tam) died in 1955. Per the Berne Convention, the copyright of the work expired in Vietnam in 2005. However, in the U.S., the provisions of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extend the term of copyright protection to 70 years after the author’s death. Thus, the copyright protection period for How to Win Friends and Influence People in the U.S. has not yet expired.

In 2014, there was a dispute between Dale Carnegie Vietnam (the local franchise of U.S.-based training company Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc.) against a former employee using a similar training course for his own business. As some copyrighted works of Dale Carnegie had fallen into the public domain in Vietnam, the company intended to bring the suit to a U.S. court where the copyright term was still valid.

To sum up, although public domain regulations in Vietnam and other countries can be beneficial for society as the free use may stimulate creation of other works, there are some more complex peripheral legal issues that should be well considered.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,