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 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More