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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,