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

September 23, 2022

Vietnam’s Amended IP Law will Strengthen and Modernize Copyright Protection

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

When Vietnam’s newly amended IP Law takes effect on January 1, 2023, bringing the country’s IP regime more in line with international standards, some of the most noticeable impacts will be in the copyright area. Some important changes in the amended IP Law are summarized below.

Reproduction

Reproduction is defined as the act of copying, in whole or in part, a work, sound or video recording, or broadcast program fixation by any means and in any form. Therefore, copying only a part of a copyrighted work would still be considered an act of reproduction and could be subject to relevant sanctions.

Distribution Rights

It is clearly provided that distribution rights are limited to products in a tangible form. Therefore, the act of making a work, sound or video recording, or broadcast program fixation available in digital form (through the internet, for example) will not be considered an act of distribution.

Exceptions to Copyright Infringement

The amended IP Law widens the scope of exceptions to copyright infringement. Exceptions have been added for, among others, persons with disabilities. The reproduction, performance, and communication of a work in an accessible format (when the persons involved have legal access to the original or copy of the work) is permitted.

In addition, exceptions (including distribution rights) are added for not-for-profit organizations authorized by the government to operate in a related field.

It is also notable that “works of art” and “the collection and anthologizing of works” are excluded from the permissible exceptions.

Enforcement Against Infringements

There are significant changes in the approach to identifying acts of copyright and related rights infringement. Specifically, instead of listing all the possible acts of infringement, the amended IP Law states that any acts violating moral rights and economic rights that do not fall under the stipulated copyright or related rights limitations and exceptions would be infringements of copyright or related rights.

This means that it will be less likely for an act of infringement to be overlooked just because it is not included on a limited list, as is the case under the existing IP Law.

In addition, the IP Law amends and introduces some acts of infringement in relation to technological measures and rights management information employed by copyright and related rights owners to protect their works and related rights objects.

The introduction of these extra acts of copyright and related rights infringement provides additional legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures or rights management information used in connection with the protection of copyright and related rights.

Determining and Distributing Royalties

The IP Law adds a clause on the principles for determining and distributing royalties among co-authors and co-owners. This prioritizes the parties’ mutual agreement, with consideration of their relative share of creative participation in and capital contribution to the work, performance, sound or video recording, or broadcast program, and as appropriate for the form of use (for example, based on the type, form, quality, quantity or frequency of use). If no mutual agreement can be reached, the government’s regulations will be applied.

Rights of Self-Protection

The right of self-protection is broadened to allow rights holders to:

  1. Publish rights management information or apply other technological measures to prevent IP infringements and meet the rapid changes of technology; and
  2. Request infringers to remove and delete infringing content on telecommunications networks and the internet.

This change is a progressive step which enables copyright holders to actively request infringers to take down or remove infringing content in the digital environment without the order of an authority. This will be the basis for rights holders to request intermediary service providers (ISPs) to take down infringing content.

Presumption of Copyright and Related Rights

A provision is introduced on the presumption of ownership, which complies with Article 18.72 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Accordingly, “authors, performers, producers of sound and video recordings, broadcasting organizations, producers of cinematographic works, and publishers that are named in the usual manner” are considered copyright holders, unless there is proof to the contrary.

This provision may help to accelerate copyright infringement proceedings by easing (a) the burden of proof on the rights owners, and (b) the verification of ownership of copyrighted works by the enforcement authorities. The amended IP Law further clarifies what constitutes being “named in the usual manner”.

ISP Responsibility

The newly introduced Article 198(b) on the obligations of ISPs shows Vietnam’s attempt to impose effective methods to address copyright infringement in the digital environment by defining ISPs more broadly than the current definition, listing their functions rather than specific types of ISPs. More importantly, the IP Law introduces a responsibility for ISPs to coordinate directly with rights holders to protect copyright and related rights, which will make enforcement more straightforward.

In addition, a safe harbor mechanism for ISPs is introduced, requiring a takedown and site-blocking mechanism as a condition to enjoy safe harbor provisions. Specifically, ISPs are only entitled to a safe harbor when they:

  1. Remove digital information content, or deny access to such content, when they know that it has been removed at the original source or the original source has cancelled access to it; or
  2. Take prompt action to remove or prevent access to such content upon learning that it infringes on copyright or related rights.

Collective Management Organizations

Additional obligations are provided for collective management organizations, including the required submission of royalty rates and royalty payment methods to the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism for approval.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More