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.