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​ 

June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More