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

May 27, 2014

Countering IP Infringement on the Internet: Online Monitoring

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The rise of mobile technology—from laptops to smart phones to tablets—has ushered in a shift among consumers away from shopping at brick-and-mortar stores toward purchasing products online. Brand owners, in response, have moved huge resources toward online sales strategies. So it should be no surprise that counterfeiters, too, have mobilized to take advantage of the growing market for products on the Internet. As more and more commerce occurs on the Web, the number of fakes being sold online has also drastically risen.

In addition to this global trend, local events here in Thailand may also be exacerbating the online infringement situation. Thailand has been mired in political unrest since November 2013, leaving the police with less time to devote to intellectual property infringement matters. There has been a notable decrease in the number of intellectual property raid actions and Customs cases that have been initiated since the political unrest began.

In this context, intellectual property owners need to consider what actions they can take—at their own initiative—to remain vigilant in their struggle against counterfeiting, while waiting for the political situation in Thailand to stabilize. One tactic that can reap immediate rewards is to redeploy resources to counter online infringement.

To assist brand owners in these efforts, Tilleke & Gibbins has a dedicated investigation team focused on identifying and disrupting IP infringement online. Our team focuses on the two core elements of online infringement:

  1. Cybersquatting, where infringers use a registered trademark belonging to another party as their domain name or part of their domain name; and
  2. The sale of fake goods via specific websites.

Our investigation process uncovers detailed information about the infringer and the nature of the infringement. With this evidence in hand, we work with the brand owner to send a cease-and-desist letter to the infringer, ordering them to immediately stop their infringing activities.

For high-value targets, a warning letter may not be sufficient. Using advanced investigative techniques, we collaborate with the IP owner to unearth detailed information about the infringer in order to learn more about the source of the goods. This type of investigation can help to trace online supply chains, leading to the discovery of hubs for the distribution of fake goods.

While these investigative techniques are important, we also encourage IP owners to pursue an integrated approach toward stopping online infringement. This can be most effective when actions aren’t limited to relying solely on intellectual property law, but instead bring together a range of legal options to disrupt infringers’ activities.

The sale of illegal medical devices online provides a good example of how such an approach can be successful. Through our investigation team’s routine monitoring of online infringement activities, we became aware that a large number of medical devices were being promoted on the Internet as legitimately certified in Thailand, when, in fact, they have only been certified in other countries. Such a claim is not a violation of intellectual property law, but it does open the door to other types of actions under other laws. To address this issue, the legitimate intellectual property owner can pursue a claim of regulatory infringement by taking action against the seller for advertising the sale of food, medicine, and medical equipment using untrue information that is deceptive to consumers. This approach can be supported by the findings of Red Case Sor. 33/2554, in which the court deemed that such an act constitutes an offense under Thailand’s Act on Computer Crimes and found the defendant guilty.

This combined legal and regulatory approach can be easily replicated across a wide range of tightly regulated products, including food, drugs, agrichemicals, and more, in order to provide new opportunities for IP owners to defend their rights. A well-coordinated online-monitoring campaign—one that bridges the gap between intellectual property law and other regulatory options—can be a very cost-effective strategy for brand owners to uncover and prevent intellectual property infringement on the Internet.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 30, 2026
On December 26, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 341/2025/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for violations of copyright and related rights (Decree 341), with an effective date of February 15, 2026. The new decree replaces Decree No. 131/2013/ND-CP, as amended, and represents the first comprehensive revision of the administrative enforcement framework in this area in eight years. Legislative Context and Objectives Decree 341 reflects Vietnam’s evolving copyright and related-rights framework, particularly in light of the country’s commitments under bilateral, regional, and multilateral treaties governing the digital environment. While the decree retains a number of provisions from the previous regime, it also introduces significant amendments to infringing acts, penalty thresholds, remedial measures, and enforcement procedures. The primary objectives of the new decree are to (i) enhance the deterrent effect of administrative sanctions; (ii) harmonize sanctions with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property and criminal law principles; and (iii) address enforcement challenges arising from online and cross-border exploitation of copyrighted works. Expanded Scope of Sanctionable Subjects Under Decree 341, administrative sanctions apply not only to Vietnamese entities committing infringing acts within Vietnam, but also to Vietnamese and foreign entities that commit acts of infringement on the internet where the protected content is accessed, consumed, or exploited by users in Vietnam. This expansion reflects the realities of cross-border digital exploitation. However, the decree does not yet provide precise definitions of key terms such as “users” or “consumers” of digital content in Vietnam, which may require further regulatory clarification. Monetary Penalties and Penalty Structure The statutory maximum fines remain unchanged, at VND 250 million for individuals and VND 500 million for organizations, but the penalty framework is substantially restructured. Fines are now calibrated based on three core criteria: (i) the amount of illegal profit obtained; (ii) the level of
Read More
January 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law, despite being amended in 2022, underwent another significant revision at the end of 2025. The latest amendment aimed to address five major policy objectives set by the Vietnamese government, including promoting innovation, digital transformation, and international integration. Among the most notable changes in the 2025 IP Law, which takes effect on 1 April 2026, is the expansion of industrial design protection under Article 4.13. The revised definition now includes partial designs and intangible designs, marking a transformative shift in Vietnam’s industrial design regime. This change has particularly significant implications on designs classified under Class 32 of the Locarno Classification—which covers graphic designs, logos, ornamentation, surface patterns, arrangements, and other intangible products. These designs, previously excluded from protection in Vietnam, are now recognized under the new legal framework. Background: Status of Class 32 Designs Before 2026 Th Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam currently applies the 13th edition of the Locarno Classification for industrial design filings. However, not all classes in this system have historically been eligible for protection. Under the 2022 IP Law, Class 32 designs were explicitly excluded based on the following legal grounds: Definition under Article 4.13 (2022 IP Law): “An industrial design is the external appearance of a product or a component for assembly into a complex product, expressed in shapes, lines, colors, or a combination thereof, and visible during the exploitation of the product’s utility or the complex product.” Product requirements under Article 21.2 of Circular 23/2023/TT-BKHCN: A product is defined as an object, a tool, a device, or means, manufactured by industrial or handicraft methods, with clear structure and function. A component for assembly into a complex product must be capable of independent circulation and detachable from the complex product. Based on these definitions, Class 32 designs, such as graphical
Read More
December 30, 2025
The Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office), with support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), is drafting additional annexes to its Guidelines for Patent Examination, focusing on the examination of patent applications in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. The new annexes are expected to be officially issued in early 2026 as Annexes III and IV, following the successful issuance in 2023 of Annexes I and II addressing computer program-related inventions. The IP Office recently organized a seminar to gather feedback on the draft annexes from intellectual property representatives, academic institutions, research institutes, and other interested parties, emphasizing its intention to receive further constructive opinions to refine the guidelines for pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Why These Guidelines Matter Patent examination in Vietnam has traditionally relied on the Guidelines for Patent Examination issued under Decision No. 487/QD-SHTT (2010), recently supplemented by Annexes I and II. While these documents provide a solid foundation, they do not fully address practical challenges in examining pharmaceutical and biotech inventions, particularly issues related to clarity, sufficiency of disclosure, enablement, features of function and utility, combination therapies, and inventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) applications in these fields. Annexes III and IV aim to close these gaps by introducing structured principles and illustrative examples. Guidance on Patent Specification Requirements Annex III provides detailed guidance on the requirements for patent specifications in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, covering two main parts: Part A addresses sufficiency of disclosure, clarity of specifications, and consistency between claims and descriptions. Part B covers inventions related to Markush-type compounds, claims containing exclusion statements (disclaimers), and additional experimental data submitted during examination. The Guidelines outline specific disclosure requirements for subject matters such as compounds, formulations, pharmaceutical compositions, genes, polypeptides, proteins, vectors, transgenic organisms, modified organisms, and hybrid cells. Annex III emphasizes that disclaimers are not accepted
Read More
December 17, 2025
Vietnam’s National Assembly approved wide-ranging amendments to the Intellectual Property (IP) Law on December 10, 2025, marking one of the most significant overhauls of the country’s IP regime in recent years. The changes, which supplement and refine existing provisions, are designed to align Vietnam’s framework more closely with international standards while addressing practical challenges faced by rights holders and practitioners. The amendments will come into force on April 1, 2026. The most notable changes are detailed below. Recognition of partial and nonphysical industrial designs: Industrial design protection has been broadened to cover partial designs and nonphysical forms (class 32), explicitly extending rights to parts of products that are not independently circulated as well as digital and intangible product appearances. The law clarifies that the external appearances of nonphysical products are protected industrial designs, and circulation of digital copies of any part of that appearance will be treated as an act of using the industrial design. The provision on the industrial applicability of industrial designs has also been amended accordingly to include the uniform reproduction of nonphysical products in cyberspace. Resolving conflicts between overlapping rights: The IP Law provides a safeguard against conflicts when a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights. Where overlapping rights exist, the later-arising right will be terminated if its exercise interferes with the normal exploitation of an earlier right. The decision to terminate such a later right rests with the court. Use of published data for AI training: Organizations and individuals may use lawfully published and publicly accessible documents and data for scientific research, testing, and AI system training. Such use must not unreasonably prejudice the rights or legitimate interests of authors or IP rights holders. Where the documents and data fall under copyright or related rights protection, their use must also comply
Read More