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

November 15, 2024

Changes to Domain Name Dispute Resolution Under Vietnam’s New Internet Decree

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s new Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (“Decree 147”), which will come into effect on December 25, 2024, replacing Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP (“Decree 72”), introduces several changes to the regime for domain name dispute resolution. The new decree aims to clarify the legal framework and address some longstanding inconsistencies between Vietnam’s laws on intellectual property and information technology.

The main changes related to domain name dispute resolution under Decree 147 are summarized below.

Removal of Prescriptive Actions

Decree 147 no longer lists specific actions for resolving domain name disputes. Decree 72 had outlined three methods: negotiation/mediation, arbitration, and court. However, IP practitioners had long criticized this approach, arguing it conflicted with the IP Law, which additionally allows administrative action.

By omitting these methods, the new decree implies an acceptance of administrative action as provided in the IP Law. However, Decree 147 remains silent on establishing a dispute resolution forum aligned with the CPTPP’s requirement for a UDRP-like model. Currently, Vietnam’s available forums do not fully conform to the UDRP framework. An anticipated circular may provide further guidance on this aspect.

Deactivation of Domain Names

Decree 72 does not have any provision on the deactivation of a domain name. However, Decree 147 has stipulated some situations where domain names will be deactivated, such as when there is a request from an authority, or when it is discovered that incorrect information was used for registration.

Clearer Criteria for Dispute Resolution

Article 16 of Decree 147 sets out three clear criteria that must be met for domain name dispute resolution to proceed: (i) confusing similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, or personal name; (ii) the defendant’s lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name; and (iii) bad faith.

Previously, Decree 72’s broader list of elements led to potential misinterpretation, suggesting that proving any single element (such as confusing similarity) might suffice to justify domain name cancellation. By clarifying these elements, Decree 147 resolves this ambiguity and represents a significant improvement in legal clarity.

Formalizing Domain Name Freezing During Proceedings

Decree 147 also formalizes the freezing of disputed domain names during proceedings, a practice briefly mentioned in Decree 72 that was previously regulated by ministerial circulars. Decree 147 gives VNNIC (Vietnam Internet Network Information Center) the obligation to lock domain names at the request of authorities; as a government-issued decree, this carries greater regulatory weight than a ministerial circular. Practical challenges may persist, especially in civil lawsuits, where domain name freezing requires a preliminary injunction. Such injunctions are rarely granted in IP cases in Vietnam; in fact, only one preliminary injunction has been issued since the IP Law took effect in 2005.

Enforcement of Judgment

Decree 147 formally addresses the process for domain name transfer or cancellation following a successful dispute resolution. Under the new rule, the plaintiff has a 45-day grace period after the judgment’s effective date to register the domain name. After this period, the domain name will become available for public registration.

This provision conflicts, however, with the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments, which grants plaintiffs a five-year window to enforce judgments. Given that enforceable judgments are often delayed—particularly in cases involving foreign respondents, where judgments may be delayed by over a year—the 45-day period may be impractical.

This timeline also differs from the UDRP model, which mandates domain name transfer to the complainant within 10 days of a decision without further action.

Lack of Effective Remedies

Decree 147 does not introduce new remedies beyond domain name cancellation and re-registration within the 45-day window. In cases where the complainant seeks a transfer, VNNIC may require additional documentation, including agreements, VAT invoices, and transfer prices—requirements that complicate the dispute resolution process unnecessarily.

While Decree 147 represents progress, it falls short of resolving the fundamental issues arising from overlaps between the IP Law and IT Law. For example, courts handling disputes under the IP Law may award legal fees, whereas such recovery is not permitted under the IT Law. Additionally, the decree’s mention of “unfair competition” as proof of bad faith overlaps with existing IP Law provisions (under Article 130.1(d)) on domain name disputes.

Moving forward, Vietnam may consider unifying its domain name dispute resolution framework under a UDRP-based model. Such a unified regime would simplify the process and better protect brand owners’ rights in Vietnam’s digital economy. In the coming time, the Ministry of Information and Communications is expected to issue a circular to provide further guidance on domain name dispute resolution. This anticipated circular may help bridge gaps and offer more detailed instructions on handling domain disputes under both legal frameworks.

A version of this article appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 22, 2026
On January 20, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued Decision No. 96/QD-BTC to formally launch pilot administrative procedures for licensing crypto asset trading market services in Vietnam. The decision took immediate effect and implements the government’s pilot crypto asset market program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP. Notably, competent authorities have now begun accepting license applications, marking the first time Vietnam has operationalized a licensing pathway for crypto trading market operators. Administrative Procedures and Applications The decision stipulates procedures for (i) granting, (ii) adjusting, and (iii) revoking licenses to provide services for organizing crypto asset trading markets. It provides detailed, step-by-step guidance for each procedure, including dossier composition, internal review stages, coordination mechanisms, and statutory timelines. These procedures apply specifically to entities seeking to organize and operate crypto asset trading markets within Vietnam’s pilot regulatory framework. The MOF is the authority responsible for reviewing and deciding on the above procedures, with the State Securities Commission acting as the receiving, coordinating, and procedural focal point. For licensing applications, the MOF will coordinate with multiple authorities, including the State Bank of Vietnam and the Ministry of Public Security, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, system safety, and risk control requirements. Applications may be submitted in person, by post, or electronically via the National Public Service Portal or the administrative procedure information system, in line with applicable regulations. Statutory processing timelines vary depending on the specific procedure and stage involved. For applications to obtain a license to organize a crypto asset trading market, the process is conducted in multiple phases: The MOF will issue an initial written response within 20 working days from receipt of a complete and valid initial dossier, following which, upon submission of the full set of required documents, the MOF will complete substantive review and issue the license
Read More
January 21, 2026
On January 16, 2026, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Committee released for public comment a draft notification that would require social media platforms operating in Thailand to implement identity verification for all user accounts and advertisers, with enhanced scrutiny for high-risk advertising activities. If finalized in its current form, the Notification on Measures to Prevent Technology Crime for Social Media Service Providers would take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, fundamentally changing how platforms verify users and monetize advertising services. The public comment period is open through February 2, 2026. Mandatory User and Advertiser Identity Verification The draft establishes a universal requirement that all social media service providers implement identity verification measures for every user account. The draft imposes stricter verification obligations for advertisers than for general users. Before publishing any advertisement, platforms must verify the advertiser’s identity at a level sufficient to identify the advertiser, unless the advertiser has previously completed verification. Risk-Based Advertisement Verification The identification requirements for advertisers will be more stringent in the following cases: The advertiser has a history of user complaints or has previously violated the platform’s terms of service. The advertisement involves finance, investment, loans, sensitive personal data, or content flagged as potentially involving cybercrime. The advertisement specifically targets vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or other at-risk demographics. In such cases, platforms must conduct identity verification using government-issued identification documents and must confirm the accuracy, authenticity, and currency of these documents with the issuing government agencies. Alternatively, platforms may verify identity through an eligible digital identity verification and authentication system provider. Information Retention Platforms must retain specific information for each advertiser, including the name of the individual or juristic person and any representatives, government-issued identification documents such as ID cards, passports, or certificates of incorporation, and reachable contact information including
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 13, 2026
On January 9, 2026, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) against five individuals for unauthorized operation of a digital-asset dealer business under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This precedent-setting case signals that the regulator is willing to pursue crypto enforcement against natural persons even in the absence of a licensed platform entity. Background and Implications The case follows the SEC’s October 2025 public warning about the use of iris-scanning technology in exchange for certain digital tokens. In its warning, the SEC cautioned that exchanging or trading these specific tokens with unlicensed service providers exposes users to heightened fraud, scam, and money laundering risks. Unlike prior regulatory enforcement matters, which involved platform-level administrative fines for operational or compliance failures, this case targets misconduct by individuals who may not be professional traders but openly advertised their willingness to buy these tokens from the public, opened individual over-the-counter (OTC) trade channels for these tokens, and facilitated off-exchange transactions in a manner resembling ordinary commercial dealing. This enforcement action establishes a clear precedent that natural persons engaging in public-facing digital-asset dealing may face criminal liability under Thai law, even without operating through a corporate or licensed platform structure. Outlook The alleged offenders may not settle this crime by payment of fines. Following the SEC’s referral, the ECD will undertake further investigation, after which prosecutors may review the case and proceed to court. The SEC has stated that it will cooperate fully with enforcement agencies throughout the criminal enforcement process.
Read More