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 23, 2022

Vietnam’s Amended IP Law will Strengthen and Modernize Copyright Protection

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

When Vietnam’s newly amended IP Law takes effect on January 1, 2023, bringing the country’s IP regime more in line with international standards, some of the most noticeable impacts will be in the copyright area. Some important changes in the amended IP Law are summarized below.

Reproduction

Reproduction is defined as the act of copying, in whole or in part, a work, sound or video recording, or broadcast program fixation by any means and in any form. Therefore, copying only a part of a copyrighted work would still be considered an act of reproduction and could be subject to relevant sanctions.

Distribution Rights

It is clearly provided that distribution rights are limited to products in a tangible form. Therefore, the act of making a work, sound or video recording, or broadcast program fixation available in digital form (through the internet, for example) will not be considered an act of distribution.

Exceptions to Copyright Infringement

The amended IP Law widens the scope of exceptions to copyright infringement. Exceptions have been added for, among others, persons with disabilities. The reproduction, performance, and communication of a work in an accessible format (when the persons involved have legal access to the original or copy of the work) is permitted.

In addition, exceptions (including distribution rights) are added for not-for-profit organizations authorized by the government to operate in a related field.

It is also notable that “works of art” and “the collection and anthologizing of works” are excluded from the permissible exceptions.

Enforcement Against Infringements

There are significant changes in the approach to identifying acts of copyright and related rights infringement. Specifically, instead of listing all the possible acts of infringement, the amended IP Law states that any acts violating moral rights and economic rights that do not fall under the stipulated copyright or related rights limitations and exceptions would be infringements of copyright or related rights.

This means that it will be less likely for an act of infringement to be overlooked just because it is not included on a limited list, as is the case under the existing IP Law.

In addition, the IP Law amends and introduces some acts of infringement in relation to technological measures and rights management information employed by copyright and related rights owners to protect their works and related rights objects.

The introduction of these extra acts of copyright and related rights infringement provides additional legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures or rights management information used in connection with the protection of copyright and related rights.

Determining and Distributing Royalties

The IP Law adds a clause on the principles for determining and distributing royalties among co-authors and co-owners. This prioritizes the parties’ mutual agreement, with consideration of their relative share of creative participation in and capital contribution to the work, performance, sound or video recording, or broadcast program, and as appropriate for the form of use (for example, based on the type, form, quality, quantity or frequency of use). If no mutual agreement can be reached, the government’s regulations will be applied.

Rights of Self-Protection

The right of self-protection is broadened to allow rights holders to:

  1. Publish rights management information or apply other technological measures to prevent IP infringements and meet the rapid changes of technology; and
  2. Request infringers to remove and delete infringing content on telecommunications networks and the internet.

This change is a progressive step which enables copyright holders to actively request infringers to take down or remove infringing content in the digital environment without the order of an authority. This will be the basis for rights holders to request intermediary service providers (ISPs) to take down infringing content.

Presumption of Copyright and Related Rights

A provision is introduced on the presumption of ownership, which complies with Article 18.72 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Accordingly, “authors, performers, producers of sound and video recordings, broadcasting organizations, producers of cinematographic works, and publishers that are named in the usual manner” are considered copyright holders, unless there is proof to the contrary.

This provision may help to accelerate copyright infringement proceedings by easing (a) the burden of proof on the rights owners, and (b) the verification of ownership of copyrighted works by the enforcement authorities. The amended IP Law further clarifies what constitutes being “named in the usual manner”.

ISP Responsibility

The newly introduced Article 198(b) on the obligations of ISPs shows Vietnam’s attempt to impose effective methods to address copyright infringement in the digital environment by defining ISPs more broadly than the current definition, listing their functions rather than specific types of ISPs. More importantly, the IP Law introduces a responsibility for ISPs to coordinate directly with rights holders to protect copyright and related rights, which will make enforcement more straightforward.

In addition, a safe harbor mechanism for ISPs is introduced, requiring a takedown and site-blocking mechanism as a condition to enjoy safe harbor provisions. Specifically, ISPs are only entitled to a safe harbor when they:

  1. Remove digital information content, or deny access to such content, when they know that it has been removed at the original source or the original source has cancelled access to it; or
  2. Take prompt action to remove or prevent access to such content upon learning that it infringes on copyright or related rights.

Collective Management Organizations

Additional obligations are provided for collective management organizations, including the required submission of royalty rates and royalty payment methods to the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism for approval.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
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 on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More