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

December 21, 2022

Vietnam Racing to Issue Decree on Copyright to Guide Amended IP Law

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

As Vietnam’s newly amended Intellectual Property Law will take effect on January 1, 2023, the government has been working with related authorities to rapidly issue necessary decrees to guide the law’s implementation, including a decree on copyright and related rights. It is expected that this new decree will be released soon, to also take effect on January 1, 2023. The latest publicly available version of the new decree is the third draft (“draft decree”). Some major issues that are covered under the draft decree are discussed below.

Definitions of terms

The draft decree provides detailed definitions of some important terms; for example, publication of works is clarified as “issuing copies of works in a reasonable quantity sufficient for public access, depending on the nature of the work,” and the exact time is made clear for re-broadcasting (after the broadcast time) and relay of a program (at the same time as the broadcast time).

Right to Perform a Work Before the Public

Article 15 clarifies the definition of the right to perform a work in public, directly or indirectly, through sound and video recordings or any other technical means which the public can access but by which they cannot freely choose the time and part of the work, so as to distinguish it from distribution rights. The draft decree also specifies what constitutes the act of performing the work for each type of work.

 Rights of Co-Authors and Co-Owners of Works

Article 16 clearly distinguishes the circumstances in which (i) co-authors are also co-owners of a copyright and (ii) co-authors are not concurrently copyright owners. The draft decree further clarifies that co-owners of copyright have the right to waive the right to publish the work and property rights.

 Exceptions to Copyright Infringement

Article 26 provides that “reasonably copying a part of a work for personal study and research is the act of copying no more than one copy of a part of a work.”

The definition of “reproduction in an accessible format” (for those with disabilities) is defined in a very broad way as “by another format or method.”

The draft decree broadens the types of organizations that can enjoy this exception, adding “organizations for people with disabilities” and “libraries,” and makes this list open instead of limited by including the clause “other organizations that meet the above conditions and approved by the competent state agency.” Regulations on procedures for recognizing these organizations are provided.

The draft decree adds two additional obligations of these organizations: to ensure copies are in an accessible format that meets the requirements of Article 25.1 of the amended IP Law, and to ensure respect for the privacy of people with disabilities.

The draft decree includes guidance on the right to exploit and use the translation of a work and the right to use a copyrighted work for teaching, research, and non-commercial purposes.

Limitation of Copyright or Related Rights

Several provisions in the draft decree specify the exploitation of works in case of copyright limitation, such as the use of works, sound and video recordings, payment of royalties, and exploitation of rights to translate works from foreign languages into Vietnamese for teaching and research purposes.

 Enforcement against Infringements

Unlike in the past, where sanctions against copyright infringements were provided in separate legislation, enforcement has been integrated into the same document. The entire Chapter VI of the draft decree covers the protection of copyrights and related rights, to a very detailed extent, including presumption of copyright and related rights, technological measures to protect rights as well as basis for determination of subjects entitled to copyright and related rights protection. The mechanisms to determine infringements and damages are clearly provided, including grounds for determining the nature and extent of infringement, principles for determination of damages, and the definition and calculation of mental loss, property damage, decline in income and profit, and loss of business opportunities.

The draft decree also adds a separate chapter on assessment of copyright and related rights (i.e. definitions, procedures, objects, etc.).

The clarifications of copyright and related rights infringement may provide additional legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures or rights management information used in connection with the protection of copyright and related rights.

 ISP Responsibility

Article 92 provides a list of organizations that can be regarded as intermediary service providers (ISPs). Notably, digital content search services has been removed from this list.

Article 93 further provides the responsibilities of ISPs, including, among other responsibilities, providing contact information, temporarily disconnecting the Internet connection or site-blocking when knowing that their customer has  committed infringing acts, and the obligation to ask authors or copyright owners for permission and pay royalties if they operate for commercial purposes.

The draft decree makes it clear that ISPs are only liable for direct compensation if there is an infringement when they are acting as a secondary source of distributing digital information obtained by copyright infringement which has been determined by a judgment or decision in force of a court or a competent state agency.

Article 95 clarifies more specifically the responsibility to remove or prevent access to infringing information content (site blocking and takedown regime), including temporary interruption of internet connection or leased channel. The draft decree also clarifies the order and procedures for receiving and processing requests from rights holders/state agencies. This regime appears quite clear and applicable for the parties involved.

Outlook

As of early December 2022, the draft decree was being reviewed by the drafting agency before submission for appraisal and validation, and was expected to be issued before the end of the year. It is much hoped that this decree with be an effective legal basis for smooth implementation of the amended IP Law, benefiting copyright owners and other relevant parties.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

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