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 14, 2015

Vietnam: Softer Approach Proves Effective in Fighting Copyright Violations

Managing Intellectual Property

Among the many challenges in enforcing intellectual property rights in developing countries like Vietnam, those that arise from violations occurring on the Internet may be the most difficult to handle. However, an American entertainment production company’s recent success in dealing with online copyright violations shows that progress can be made with the right strategy.

Big Market, Big Challenges

With a population of more than 90 million people, a large percentage of them under the age of 30, Vietnam has one of the fastest Internet growth rates in the world. Moreover, because its Internet infrastructure is new, Internet bandwidth and download speeds in Vietnam are some of the highest in Asia. Along with this trend, numerous Internet-related business models have appeared, with the online music space being particularly active. Despite the immense amount of activity, nearly every film and music production company has expressed concerns about the state of rampant copyright violations of their works. While the market for their products has grown dramatically, this has not brought about a corresponding increase in profits, as the vast majority of songs and videos accessed via Vietnamese websites are bootlegs or illegal downloads, offered to consumers for free, or for a small fee that never reaches the copyright holder.

In Vietnam, as in most countries, the legal framework has struggled to keep pace with the digital economy. Typical measures of dealing with IP infringements have been ineffective in the online environment, with its ever-evolving series of loopholes and moving targets. Efforts to encourage consumers to comply with copyright on a voluntary basis, such as the “Listen with Awareness” campaign being spread by Vietnamese singers and songwriters, have had a limited impact, and “music is free” seems to have become the de facto  expectation of many Vietnamese consumers.

Music Production Companies Fight Back

In January 2014, Lang Van, a U.S.-based music production and distribution company geared toward overseas Vietnamese consumers, filed a high-profile lawsuit in a U.S. district court against Vietnamese tech company VNG, the owner of the popular music and social network site Zing.vn. Lang Van accused the site of illegally sharing over 3,000 of its copyrighted recordings. Although the website is based in Vietnam, is in the Vietnamese language, and primarily targets a domestic Vietnamese audience, Lang Van chose to file the suit in the U.S. with the hope that the American legal system would be more effective than the Vietnamese legal system in defending copyrights, and, just as importantly, would award greater damages.

In contrast, another U.S. company specializing in music and videos embarked on a different, more conciliatory approach to dealing with online copyright violations through its law firm, Tilleke & Gibbins, which has proved successful. A key to this approach was recognizing that, contrary to popular belief, as the market has matured, the majority of Vietnamese music websites now have a genuine interest in providing copyrighted content through legitimate means.

The company prepared its strategy carefully. First, through its representative, it gathered evidence of the violations in a “statement of fact.” This is a form of establishing evidence with the witness of a notary, and evidence recorded in this form cannot be rejected in terms of accuracy. This evidence would also serve for every subsequent step of enforcement whether within or outside the territory of Vietnam.

Gently worded cease-and-desist letters were then delivered to six websites which were illegally offering the company’s copyrighted content, drawing attention to the evidence of their violations but expressing a desire for a cooperative rather than adversarial relationship going forward. These letters yielded positive results almost immediately, as the website owners (including some of the largest companies in Vietnam’s high-tech/telecom sector) acknowledged the seriousness of the problem and the professional approach of the owner. Within just two weeks, almost all of the infringing content – over 1,800 songs and videos – was removed from the websites, while the owners wait to negotiate with the copyright holder on the (legal) use of the works.

The success in this case shows the value of “local insight” in effectively dealing with Vietnamese companies and infringement cases, and hints that Vietnam might be ready to shake off its reputation as a haven for digital piracy. Furthermore, the lessons of this case may be heeded by other movie and music companies who often complain about the situation of easily available downloads, but do not take a proactive approach. The key is to create an overall strategy with an emphasis on: (i) airtight evidence gathering and certification; (ii) communicating to the infringers the legal risks they are assuming; and (iii) providing readily available licensing options.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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
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
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes