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 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
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
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