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​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More