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

May 15, 2012

Administrative Measures to Resolve Domain Name Disputes in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In late 2008, intellectual property owners were encouraged when Vietnam issued long-awaited regulations providing guidance on how to resolve disputes about “.vn” domain names. This optimism soon faded, however, when the reality of the new practice set in. IP owners and practitioners continued to face challenges in securing their online rights, and there appeared to be no clear options for pursuing measures through a system that was transparent, effective, cost-efficient, and time-saving.

To address this issue, Circular No. 37/2011/TT-BKHCN of the Ministry of Science and Technology, which took force as of February 10, 2012 (Circular 37), is expected to breathe new life into the current mechanism of resolving domain name disputes involving intellectual properties such as trademarks, trade names, and geographical indications by describing in more detail the administrative measures to be used as a means of resolution.

Existing Legal Framework

Under Vietnam’s 2006 Law on Information Technology, there have traditionally been three means available to resolve domain name disputes: informal negotiation, arbitration, and litigation in court. In order to provide a more comprehensive framework for domain name dispute resolution, the Ministry of Information and Communication introduced Circular 10/2008/TT-BTTT (Circular 10) in December 2008. Circular 10 provided details on the grounds under which a complainant may take action under these three means of dispute resolution, allowing the complainant to proceed if they can demonstrate all three of the following:

  • The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the name of the complainant, or identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has lawful rights or interests.
  • The registrant has no lawful rights or interests in the domain name.
  • The domain name has been used by the registrant with bad faith.

Circular 10 also provided evidentiary requirements and set forth some very general rules on procedure.

Challenges in Administrative Measures

Despite the availability of various measures for dispute resolution ranging from negotiation to litigation, most IPR disputes in Vietnam are currently settled by administrative measures—penalties carried out by state agencies outside the court system. This is typical for Vietnam, though concerned parties based in other jurisdictions often think of civil actions when it comes to dispute resolution. The 2005 Law on Intellectual Property (Article 130.1.d) and Decree No. 97/2010/ND-CP on administrative sanctions in the field of industrial property rights (Articles 11, 12, and 14.10.a) include administrative measures as an approach to resolve domain name disputes.

However, these administrative measures have always faced challenges in enforcement. The Vietnam Internet Network Information Center (VNNIC), a state agency managing and allocating domain names ending in “.vn,” has the power to withhold, cancel, or transfer disputed domain names. Prior to the enactment of Circular 37, VNNIC relied on legal documents, namely, the 2006 Law on Information Technology, Circular 10, and Decision No. 73/QD-VNNIC dated March 17, 2010, to enforce decisions or judgments regarding disputed domain names. But as stated above, these documents did not provide administrative measures; instead, they provided civil measures, negotiation, and arbitration as methods to resolve domain name disputes. As a result, the use of administrative measures for resolving domain name disputes came to a near standstill.

Improved Process

With a view to resolving this bottleneck, Circular 37 provides new clarity on how these disputes can be settled. First, Circular 37 demonstrates the consensus of the Ministry of Information and Communication—the body with direct authority over VNNIC—in dealing with domain name disputes by administrative measures. From now on, administrative decisions on resolving domain name disputes can be enforced by VNNIC as provided in Article 2.3.b(i) of the Circular.

Second, all pending disputes that arose before the effective date of the Circular can be dealt with administratively. This is definitely a positive development for disputes that have remained unresolved for a long time.

Obstacles to Implementation

In addition to these positive points, however, there may be some obstacles to implementation of the Circular in practice. The Circular does not set forth a freeze of transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name during the application of administrative measures. This could put IPR holders at risk of having to start anew with legal actions if the cybersquatters transfer or cancel the disputed domain name during the resolution.

Another potential obstacle exists in Article 11.2.a of the Circular, which holds that the person who is entitled to request administrative resolution of a domain name dispute must be the holder of a trademark, trade name, or geographical indication that is widely used in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the following paragraph of the same Article (Article 11.2.b.i) does not consider wide use to be a factor in determining whether unfair competition is occurring. This vagueness raises a question as to whether holders of trademarks, trade names, or geographical indications that are not widely used are also given the right to fight against cyberpiracy of their domain names.

Despite its shortcomings, Circular 37 will provide IPR holders with a new approach to fight against cyber-piracy. IP owners can now hold out fresh hope that these administrative measures will contribute to stronger protection of their legitimate rights and interests in Vietnam.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
On September 4, 2026, Thailand’s prime minister convened the first meeting of the Data Center Business Policy Committee. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework for the data center industry and tasked four subcommittees with developing the standards that would sit beneath it, shifting away from fragmented, agency-by-agency approvals toward a unified national strategy aiming to maximize economic value while managing environmental and infrastructure concerns. Proposed Scope and Pillars of the National Data Center Policy Framework The proposed framework would cover all types of data centers, including internal or captive facilities operated within a company or its affiliates, rather than only commercial third-party providers. If adopted in this form, companies running private data centers purely for internal purposes would also become subject to regulatory oversight. Minimum safety and operational standards would be established, with uniform enforcement across all categories. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework with four key pillars: Industrial classification: Data centers exceeding 2 MW would be classified as industrial operations, which may require factory licenses and environmental impact assessments under the Factory Act. Resource pricing: Utility rates would be structured to reflect both direct and indirect costs, supporting green energy and green data center standards. Centralized screening: A centralized review would evaluate project suitability and resource allocation. Operators may be required to submit proposals through periodic “pitching” rounds, where projects are competitively assessed on their potential economic and strategic benefits to Thailand. Digital ecosystem: The framework would prioritize data sovereignty, tax incentives, and conditions promoting domestic digital businesses, AI, and cloud infrastructure. Multidimensional Evaluation Criteria and Subcommittees Four subcommittees will be established to develop standards responsible for the following dimensions: Economic: Criteria for assessing the economic viability of data center projects, for use in prioritizing data centers based on infrastructure readiness, demand type (including AI factories),
Read More
September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 25, 2026
Vietnam has enacted a new decree establishing administrative penalties for violations in the fields of cybersecurity and personal data protection. Decree No. 330/2026/NĐ-CP (Decree 330), issued and effective from August 19, 2026, provides a detailed sanctions framework for noncompliance with the Law on Personal Data Protection (including its implementing regulations under Decree 356/2025/ND-CP) and the Law on Cybersecurity, together with their guiding decrees. The issuance of Decree 330 signals that the practical grace period previously perceived by many businesses may be drawing to a close, with active regulatory enforcement in these areas expected to commence in earnest. Scope and Key Provisions Decree 330 has extraterritorial effect and applies to both onshore and offshore companies. For offshore companies, it applies to those that (1) provide telecommunications, internet, online-content, information-technology, cybersecurity, or cross-border services and (2) are involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and certain other people of Vietnamese origin. Decree 330’s key provisions cover the following areas: Administrative penalties for violations relating to the protection of national security and public order in cyberspace, including the dissemination of unlawful, false, or unverified information. Sanctions for cyberattacks, unauthorized access, introduction of harmful code or programs, and failure to cooperate with specialized cybersecurity forces. Sanctions for personal data protection violations, such as consent, cross-border data transfers, impact assessments, breach notification, and data-subject rights, among others—with maximum fines of up to 5% of an organization’s preceding-year revenue for cross-border transfer violations, or up to VND 3 billion for other data-protection breaches. Personal Data Protection Penalties The key sanctions for personal data protection violations are as follows: Consent violations: Fines of up to VND 70 million (approx. USD 2,642), plus potential additional sanctions and remedial measures including irreversible deletion of personal data collected without consent and confiscation of
Read More