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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation