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

July 31, 2024

Vietnam Tackles Illegal Streaming of Premier League Matches in Landmark Case

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On the afternoon of 19 April 2024, a cramped courtroom at the People’s Court of Hanoi was the setting for the first criminal trial of a case of copyright and related rights infringement in Vietnam, regarding the act of illegal streaming of English Premier League football matches on online platforms. This case is expected to open the door for the criminal prosecution of other cases of copyright and related rights infringement on the internet, an area that has faced numerous difficulties over the past two decades.

First criminal case of illegal streaming

Vietnamese criminal law has long had provisions in place for criminal handling of copyright infringement crimes, specifically in Article 131 of the 1999 Penal Code. However, more than 20 years after this law took effect, and even though Vietnam enacted the 2015 Penal Code with subsequent amendments, these regulations have remained mainly a law on paper only, and many significant and serious cases causing great frustration for rights holders and society have not been criminally prosecuted.

The case in question was initiated by a denunciation of the BestBuyIPTV subscription service by the Football Association Premier League Limited (the “Premier League”) and the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (“ACE”), a coalition of global entertainment companies and film studios dedicated to combating digital piracy and copyright infringement. BestBuyIPTV had illegally streamed Premier League matches and other protected works without authorization of the rights holders.

In 2023, after an extensive investigation, the Cybersecurity and High-Tech Crime Prevention Division (PA05) and the Police Department for Investigating Corruption, Smuggling, and Economic Crimes (PC03) of the Hanoi police brought a case for criminal copyright infringement, pursuant to Article 225 of the 2015 Penal Code, against the offender, an individual named Le Hai Nam, consolidating the dossiers for the People’s Procuracy to indict this defendant before the court.

The verdict issued on 19 April 2024 found the defendant guilty of copyright infringement and sentenced him to a 30-month suspended sentence, a 60-month probation, a penalty of VND 100 million (about USD 3,927) as an additional sanction, and confiscation of VND 615 million (about USD 24,155) he had made as illicit profit. The defendant admitted to all charges and surrendered the full amount of illicit profits.

Overcoming obstacles

Criminal cases inherently require very high standards of evidence, as well as proof of factors such as “commercial scale” or “illicit profits” as necessary conditions to be able to determine whether the actions constitute a crime. Thus, handling a criminal case is difficult when all the alleged criminal activities are conducted on an online platform. Due to this complication, the authorities find it very difficult to initiate any official action.

However, in this case, the Premier League and ACE were determined to provide information and materials to accurately identify the offender as the administrator and operator of the copyright-infringing platform BestBuyIPTV. They also subsequently cooperated and worked meticulously with the police to identify the nature of the crime and determine the illicit profits that the defendant gained from his crime. Specifically, the defendant charged thousands of clients a subscription at the price of approximately USD 9/month, with the proceeds then transferred in roundabout ways, including to the accounts of his relatives. The police authorities also successfully proved the offender’s intention in committing such acts, which is also a necessary condition for criminal prosecution of this type of crime.

It should be noted that the 2015 Penal Code, as amended in 2017, has solved one of the problems; specifically, it sets out alternative factors constituting a crime, rather than merely relying on the “commercial scale” and other criteria that were difficult to define in the former regulation. For many years it has not been clear what “commercial scale” entails, for example, resulting in the failure of many criminal prosecutions. In the Premier League case, the police and the People’s Procuracy applied the illicit profit aspect, a new criterion under the 2015 Penal Code, to demonstrate the defendant’s criminal acts, overcoming the obstacles in applying criminal law.

Long-lasting effect

A common viewpoint among practitioners is that there can be no second case without the first. In practice, this verdict of the People’s Court of Hanoi will have an impact far beyond the context of this case, and will be a benchmark for IP right holders to aspire to in their stronger application of criminal measures. In the verdict, Judge Le Hai Yen of the Hanoi People’s Court noted that “it is necessary to apply a strict penalty on the defendant to educate and reform offenders and for general deterrence and prevention.”

The Premier League remains committed to working with local authorities and law enforcement, as well as its broadcast partner K+, to take action and educate people on the dangers of streaming content through illegal pirate services.

This verdict is a precedent for litigation authorities such as the police, the People’s Procuracy, and the courts to use as a reference and for them to be more decisive in applying the existing provisions in the Penal Code to handle crimes in this field. Ultimately, international partners and investors can see from this verdict the positive signals from Vietnam’s process of building and complying with IP law.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More