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 23, 2023

Recent Copyright and Patent Cases Signal Shift in Vietnam’s IP Regime

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

April and May witnessed intriguing developments within Vietnam’s intellectual property community. On the legislation side, of particular note was the issuance of Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP on April 26, coinciding with World IP Day. Decree 17 provides guidance on implementation of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law with regard to copyright and related rights, and has garnered significant attention due to several issues, especially the liability of intermediary (internet) service providers and copyright violation in the digital environment.

Additionally, two noteworthy IP cases have emerged, albeit with limited public disclosure and awareness of specific details. Nonetheless, these cases are expected to have far-reaching implications.

Copyright: Criminal Case Against Unauthorized Broadcasting of Football Matches

For a considerable period of time, Vietnamese football enthusiasts have enjoyed being able to watch matches on TV and online from numerous top global football leagues. While many of these broadcasts were legitimate, with the rights purchased by Vietnamese and regional broadcasters, the unauthorized transmission and broadcasting of football matches on the internet has become increasingly prevalent. Authorities have seemingly faced challenges in curbing this issue through criminal action.

In a positive development, in early May the Hanoi police decided to open a criminal proceeding against the unauthorized transmission and broadcasting of high-profile overseas football matches after a rigorous two-year investigation. Prior to this decision, authorities encountered difficulties in accurately determining the relevant laws and the nature of the violation to meet the requirements for prosecution. Specifically, they grappled with the question of whether a football match, or more specifically, a recorded video of a football match, could be considered a copyrighted work. If copyright protection extended to football matches and/or recorded videos, then transmitting and broadcasting these matches directly through the internet could be deemed illegal acts of copying or distributing (copyrighted) works, as outlined in Article 225 of the Criminal Code.

After careful consideration, the police agency concluded that there was clear evidence of the copying of copyrighted works—specifically the recorded videos of football matches—for profit. Consequently, the case has been prosecuted and transferred to the investigation agency. Hopes are high that the investigation phase will conclude in the near future, paving the way for prosecution and trial. This case will serve as a crucial precedent for similar cases in the future, and may be a chance to test the provisions of the new Decree 17.

Patent: Landmark Trial Involving X-Ray Diffraction

Another notable case centers on a patent held by a major pharmaceutical company based in Europe, protecting ivabradine hydrochloride in gamma crystal form, which is determined through X-ray diffraction test. Suspecting infringement by a Vietnamese enterprise, the patent holder had collected samples and conducted technical analysis in an advanced laboratory in France. Subsequently, based on the technical analysis report, the patent holder requested the Vietnam Intellectual Property Research Institute (VIPRI) to assess the patent infringement, leading to the initiation of a lawsuit.

The case took an interesting turn when the initial judgment in 2019 ruled in favor of the plaintiff but was later overturned by the Superior Court in Ho Chi Minh City in 2020. Consequently, the case returned to the first-instance court for a retrial by a different panel of judges. In the retrial in 2022, the plaintiff emerged victorious once again, prompting an appeal of the second-instance judgment. On May 24, 2023, the appellate court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, upholding the previously rendered second-instance judgment. After nearly six years of litigation, the patent holder achieved victory.

Despite its lengthy process, the case holds immense significance as it addressed various issues arising during the proceedings. Notably, it involved novel applications and interpretations of patent law regarding X-ray diffraction analysis and the utilization of foreign analysis reports.

As for the defendant’s continuous requests for a stay of the suit pending the results of the invalidation proceedings it had initiated, the court remarked that the defendant could not indefinitely delay and obstruct the court’s proceedings by citing unresolved nullity proceedings. If the defendant had been serious about its invalidation request, the court reasoned, it should have assumed its responsibility to follow up closely with the IP Office rather than merely filing the invalidation request and then sitting on it for years.

The court’s approach, particularly regarding appellate proceedings, is considered progressive as judgments become effective immediately upon issuance. Moving forward, the execution of this judgment and its impact on Vietnam’s patent enforcement system in the coming years will be closely monitored.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More