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​ 

June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
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
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More