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 2, 2019

Vietnam: Is Site Blocking the Solution to Online Piracy?

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Websites offering pirated content can inflict tremendous damage on copyright holders, but due to the simplicity of sharing digital content in today’s high-speed, always-connected online environment, copyright protection poses serious challenges to both rights holders and government authorities.

Copyright owners such as professional sports leagues, movie studios, and legitimate streaming sites are increasingly turning to the tactic of site blocking, which targets internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent users’ access to websites hosting pirated content. In many countries around the world, this has become a common approach to protecting the legitimate rights of copyright holders.

In Vietnam, although paid streaming services are gaining a foothold, online copyright infringement and pirated content are still widespread. Site blocking may offer a possible alternative for rights holders in the fight against online piracy.

Obligations of ISPs Under the Law

While not explicitly stated in Vietnamese law, the obligations of ISPs to block access to pirated content are implied or suggested in various legal documents:

Information Technology Law 2006: Under Article 16.3, at the request of competent authorities, transmitters of digital information must promptly implement necessary measures to stop the illegal access to or deletion of information. As ISPs transmit digital information, they are therefore obliged to stop illegal access to information, through methods which could include site blocking, upon a request from the authorities.

Joint Circular No. 07/2012/TTLT-BTTTT-BVHTTDL on obligations of intermediary service providers in protection of copyright and related rights on the internet and telecom network environments: Under Article 5.3, ISPs have the obligation to remove and delete digital content which violates copyright and related rights, and to cut, stop or suspend internet or telecom connections (of their customers/users), upon the receipt of a written request from the authorities. Although preventing or blocking access to sites not hosted/operated by the ISP itself is not mentioned, there is an implication that ISPs could be required to do so, if there is a request from the authorities.

Cybersecurity Law 2018: Under Article 21, ISPs have the responsibility to cooperate with professional cybersecurity forces of the Ministry of Public Security to prevent, detect and respond to cybersecurity emergencies. Cybersecurity emergencies are events in cyberspace that seriously violate national security, public order, or the lawful rights and interests of an organization or individual, and are further defined to include IP and copyright infringement. ISPs that detect a cybersecurity emergency must promptly inform a professional cybersecurity force and implement response measures which include preventing or minimizing the damage caused by the emergency. In the case of copyright infringement, this could be done by initiating a site-blocking action. The law, however, does not specifically guide how to determine the seriousness of a violation.

Circular 38/2016/TT-BTTTT on cross-border provision of public information: Article 5.1 provides a mechanism for blocking Vietnamese users’ access to “illegal online information.” However, this only covers anti-state propaganda, pornography, defamation, etc., and does not explicitly include IP or copyright infringement.

Based on the above analysis, ISPs under Vietnamese law would seem to have an obligation to block their users from accessing infringing websites, but only upon an order from the competent authorities. Without such orders, there is no requirement to block users’ access to pirated content.

Route to Obtaining Site Blocking Order

In theory, rights holders may rely on the court (via preliminary injunction or final judgment) or other competent authorities, such as the Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information (ABEI), to seek a site-blocking order.

In practice, no court orders on site blocking have yet been recorded. This may be the result of not having any rights holders requesting such actions before the court yet, due to obstacles in achieving preliminary injunctions (only a few have been granted in IP disputes in Vietnam) and the length of time required for obtaining final court judgments (normally 10-14 months).

As a result, so far, the ABEI has been the most active authority in administering site blocking. Last year, one of the very first site-blocking actions on the basis of copyright and related rights infringement was granted by the ABEI, in which it ordered multiple ISPs to block users’ access to 18 infringing websites which were illegally broadcasting events from the Asian Games.

Outlook

Site blocking is not a perfect or final solution, and in some cases can feel like chasing a moving target, as infringing websites can change their online locations easily and at relatively low cost (e.g., from .vn to .org). However, it is still a worthwhile tactic for owners of valuable copyrights, as it can be an effective deterrent to would-be infringers with limited resources or determination, and can reduce large-scale piracy by decentralizing the pirated content and making it harder to find. Frustrated users forced to spend countless hours tracking down the football matches or movies they want to watch are likely more willing to pay for legal access.

In the long run, in addition to seeking site-blocking orders, rights holders should coordinate with other authorities like the police to handle infringement at the root, through more serious actions like initiating criminal lawsuits.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More