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

June 4, 2025

Online IP Enforcement in Vietnam: Utilizing Site and Keyword Blocking

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

The growth of Vietnam’s vibrant digital economy offers tremendous potential but is also a driver of the persistent problem of online intellectual property (IP) infringement. The spectrum of issues faced by IP rights holders runs from copyright piracy on digital services (such as streaming and torrent sites) to the sale of counterfeit goods via e-commerce sites and social platforms to the misuse of rights through misleading use of trademarks. These infringements do not only eat into profits; they damage brand reputation and mislead consumers. As a result, site blocking and keyword blocking have become increasingly important components of the enforcement toolkit available in Vietnam.

Legal Framework for Blocking Actions

Site and keyword blocking in Vietnam is supported by a growing legal framework, particularly following the 2022 amendment to the IP Law. Prior to this, the legal basis for blocking was scattered across various laws, and internet service providers (ISPs) were only obligated to block access to infringing content upon official requests from authorities.

The introduction of Article 198b under the amended IP Law marked a significant shift, establishing a clearer mechanism for rights holders to request site blocking directly. This provision obliges them to act upon valid takedown or blocking requests.

In addition to the IP Law, other key legislation includes the Law on Information Technology, the Law on Cybersecurity, the Law on Advertising, and various decrees. Together, these laws provide a more structured and enforceable basis for blocking actions in Vietnam, though practical enforcement still depends on ISP cooperation and the clarity of the infringement evidence.

Competent Authorities

Previously, rights holders could pursue administrative actions through specialized inspectorates under the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, or the Vietnam E-Commerce and Digital Economy Agency (iDEA). However, due to a recent government restructuring, these bodies have been dissolved with their functions transitioning to the Government Inspectorate – potentially impacting enforcement timelines in the near term. Civil disputes, including blocking orders, are handled by the People’s Courts, while criminal cases are referred to the police.

Understanding the Blocking Mechanisms in Practice

To effectively deploy these measures, rights holders need to grasp their practical application. Site blocking acts as a direct blockade, intending to stop internet users residing in Vietnam from accessing certain websites deemed to host infringing content. ISPs are the main operators of these blocks, typically upon receiving a valid request or order. They employ technical methods such as DNS blocking (preventing the website’s name from resolving to an IP address), direct IP address blocking, or filtering specific URLs known to contain infringing content. The goal is plainly to deny entry to the origin of the breach from within the borders.

Keyword blocking targets the discoverability of infringing content or products. The logic is that even if an infringing site exists, making it difficult for users to locate it can help to significantly reduce its impact. This includes taking proactive measures such as requesting search engines like Google, Bing, or local alternative Cốc Cốc to remove or lower the ranking of links leading to infringing materials from search results associated with relevant keywords. It also involves working with online ad platforms such as Google Ads, YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok to prevent advertisements for counterfeit or pirated items from being displayed when users search for, or are targeted by, those specific terms. This approach effectively helps to disrupt the connection between consumer searches and infringing online offers.

Practical Steps

Implementing blocking measures requires a structured, practical approach. The process typically begins with identifying and documenting the infringement. Building and preserving strong evidence—such as conducting a bailiff recordal and, where appropriate, making test purchases—is essential to support any subsequent enforcement actions.

With solid evidence in hand, rights holders must choose the most suitable enforcement channel. This decision depends on many factors, such as the severity of the infringement, the urgency of action, and available resources. One option is to submit takedown notices directly to ISPs, using their internal reporting mechanisms. This approach can yield quick results for clear-cut violations. However, its effectiveness largely depends on the ISP’s cooperation, which can be inconsistent. ISPs may decline to act if the infringement appears debatable or too complex to assess without formal adjudication. In such cases, ISPs typically advise parties to seek resolution through appropriate authorities.

Alternatively, rights holders may file administrative complaints with the relevant authorities. This is often more efficient and cost-effective than litigation, though delays may occur due to the ongoing restructuring of the inspectorates. For e-commerce infringements, complaints can be submitted to iDEA.

Civil litigation is suitable for cases involving significant damages or injunctive relief while criminal action is necessary for serious offenses such as large-scale counterfeiting. However, both routes are time- and resource-intensive, and best reserved for major infringements.

Regardless of the enforcement route, the process typically involves the following:

  • Dossier preparation: Compiling proof of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and legal authorizations (e.g., power of attorney). Documentation requirements may vary by ISP or authority.
  • Submission: Filing the completed dossier with the appropriate entity.
  • Review and action: ISPs may act quickly if the claim is clear, while the authorities are conducting formal reviews. If infringement is confirmed, they may impose sanctions or order content removal.

Even after enforcement, ongoing market monitoring is essential due to the high risk of repeat violations.

Final Thoughts

While site blocking and keyword blocking are not without challenges—with infringers frequently using tactics such as VPNs, domain hopping, keyword manipulation, and anonymity to evade enforcement—they remain indispensable tools for protecting IP rights in Vietnam’s increasingly digital marketplace. They provide concrete mechanisms to limit access to, and visibility of, infringing content. Site and keyword blocking should be viewed as vital components of a broader enforcement strategy—complemented by platform engagement, administrative actions, and litigation when necessary. Success requires persistence, adaptability, and a proactive approach as infringers’ tactics continue to evolve.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
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