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​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
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 as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More