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

July 12, 2022

Your Name, Their Trademark? Protecting Publicity Rights in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Observers in Vietnam were recently captivated by a trademark application filed by a famous singer, Truong Trieu Truc Lan (also known as Nathan Lee), for the mark “CAO THAI SON” for “real estate services” in Class 36, “entertainment and stage performances” in Class 41 and “restaurant services” in Class 43.

“Cao Thai Son” is the real name of another famous Vietnamese singer. The application astonished the community not only due to Nathan Lee’s attempt to register another person’s name, but also because Nathan Lee and Cao Thai Son have a longtime rivalry, and after buying copyrights to many of Cao Thai Son’s hit songs, Nathan Lee’s registration of his rival’s own name has obviously deepened the animosity between the two.

If this mark is exclusively granted to Nathan Lee, Cao Thai Son’s fans are worried that their idol could no longer use his own name in his performing career due to risks of trademark infringement. Their concern is not groundless in the context that protection of trademarks in Vietnam mostly depends on registration. Rights to non-registered objects, even well-known marks, are still rather difficult to obtain and enforce.

However, the right to an individual’s name is a moral right, which cannot be bought, sold, transferred between living people, or inherited. Article 26 of Vietnam’s Civil Code affirms that individuals “have the right to have a full name (including a middle name, if any) … determined by the person’s first and last name at birth,” and that they “establish and perform civil rights and obligations according to their surname and name.”

Thus, Cao Thai Son, as an individual, has the right to use his name in civil transactions. He can also use his name in his performances, regardless of whether the trademark “CAO THAI SON” is granted to Nathan Lee, because as a performer, he has the right to have his name acknowledged when performing, distributing audio and visual media, and broadcasting performances (Article 29.2 of the IP Law). However, Cao Thai Son’s use of his own name should only be for descriptive purposes, to meet the criteria of honest and nominative fair use, while the use of his name in a manner typical of a trademark may face the risk of infringement if Nathan Lee’s application for the “CAO THAI SON” mark is granted.

Right of Publicity and Trademark Rights

This case has also raised the question of publicity rights: Can a third party use the name, image or other likeness of another person without the consent of that person? In other words, if Nathan Lee is granted the trademark, can he use the name “Cao Thai Son” for commercial purposes, and if so, to what extent?

The right of publicity allows people to control the use of their name and likeness for commercial purposes. In the U.S., the right of publicity is clearly protected and separate from other rights. The key to the right of publicity is the commercial value of a human identity, while the key to trademark law is the use of a word or logo in such a way that it identifies and distinguishes a commercial source of goods and services. However, in Vietnam, publicity rights are not explicitly protected. They may be recognized not as a form of property rights, but rather civil/moral rights, and sometimes are mixed up with privacy rights. This causes a loophole in the protection of publicity rights in Vietnam, at least for celebrities, as publicity rights are necessary to prevent others from using a celebrity’s name or likeness in advertising or promotion to falsely suggest that the celebrity has endorsed the advertised product or service.

In Vietnam, publicity rights have some protection through a requirement in the Civil Code (Article 32) that remuneration be paid for the use of other people’s images for commercial purposes, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. If the use of images is illegal, the person in the image has the right to request the court to issue a decision to force the violator or other relevant parties to withdraw and destroy such image, terminate its use, compensate for damages, and apply other measures. However, the law does not specify or provide guidance on what is considered the use of an individual’s image for commercial purposes. In addition, determining damages is very difficult, especially in the online environment, where there is rapid illegal spreading of images. More importantly, Article 32 of the Civil Code only regulates the use of people’s images, and not people’s names.

Given the above, protecting some aspect of publicity through trademark law may be an effective option. It is very common in Vietnam for celebrities themselves or management/sponsor companies to register celebrities’ names and images, for example:

  • 1989s Co., Ltd has applied for “Bich Phuong”, “Tien Cookie”, “BigDaddy”, “Phuc Du” and “Emily” trademarks for services in Classes 9, 35 and 41. These all are names or pseudonyms of famous Vietnamese singers. It is understood that the company is a management and training company of these singers.
  • A French apparel company has applied for the international mark designating Vietnam, which features the name “Novak Djokovic” and the silhouette of the famous Serbian tennis player. This mark was refused by the Vietnam IP Office for being misleading. The company then argued that the registration is part of its sponsorship agreement with Djokovic, who has consented to the company’s use and registration of this mark.

Celebrities and rights holders can strengthen their publicity rights by registering names or images as trademarks. However, it is worth noting that the IP authorities are much stricter when it comes to examining trademarks containing images of people. If a trademark contains the image of a real person, the subject must authorize the use of the image for the mark to be registered (Article 32 of the Civil Code).

Where disputes over publicity rights overlap with trademark rights, as in the Cao Thai Son case, Article 7.2 of the IP Law provides a limitation that the exercise of IP rights “must not violate … the legitimate rights and interests of other organizations and individuals, and must not breach other relevant provisions of law.” In this case, Nathan Lee’s use and registration of the “CAO THAI SON” mark may be considered a violation of Cao Thai Son’s legitimate rights and interests over his name (Article 26 of the Civil Code). Therefore, Cao Thai Son may oppose the mark in question, arguing that its registration would violate his rights to his name as regulated under the Civil Code, thus violating Article 7.2 of the IP Law. In addition, the mark would mislead the public as to the source of goods/services (Article 73.5 of the IP Law), and is confusingly similar to his well-known mark (also his name), which has been used for a long and extensive period (Article 74.2(i, g) of the IP Law). Arguments of bad faith may also support an opposition to retain the rights to his name in this battle.

However, it is still unclear whether Cao Thai Son can also base his opposition on Article 73.3 of the IP Law, which prevents registration of marks that are “identical or confusingly similar to real names, aliases, pseudonyms or images of leaders, national heroes or famous personalities of Vietnam or foreign countries”, as there is no guideline on whether a singer can be regarded as a “famous personality” of Vietnam.

Final thoughts

Publicity rights have frequently been in the spotlight in Vietnam in recent years as the entertainment industry rapidly develops, while protections are still lacking. The laws covering these rights are scattered, so individuals, especially famous ones, should develop a smart strategy to protect their own publicity rights using the trademark system. Early application filings, together with proactive collection of evidence of prior use and reputation are some keys to successful protection of names and images. With a well-considered strategy, success is attainable in defending publicity and image rights in Vietnam.

A shorter version of this article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More