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​ 

December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
Read More
December 3, 2025
Thailand’s Civil Court has issued a regulation targeting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of pleadings and other documents submitted to the court. Effective November 17, 2025, the regulation aligns with September 2025 guidance from the president of the Supreme Court, and aims to safeguard accuracy, transparency, and public confidence in civil adjudication. The regulation applies to all parties submitting pleadings or any documents to the Civil Court that are prepared using AI tools or contain AI-generated content. It subjects AI used for these purposes to strict requirements on verification, disclosure, and accountability. Core Obligations The regulation imposes four principal obligations: Lawyers who use AI remain subject to duties of honesty, responsibility to the court, professional standards, and legal ethics, including the duty to assess the appropriateness of the AI tool for the work. Parties and lawyers must verify the accuracy and completeness of all facts, legal provisions, and citations in AI-generated content before submission. Parties and lawyers must disclose to the court any AI-generated content by clearly marking the beginning and end of the AI-generated portion with prescribed statements (see below). Additionally, a certification confirming the use of AI must be provided at the end of the pleading or document, stating that AI was used for certain portions and that the party has reviewed and certifies the accuracy of factual and legal content. Parties and lawyers bear the same full legal and ethical responsibility for AI-generated content as they do for personally authored documents; they cannot evade responsibility or avoid liability by citing AI-related errors. Likewise, parties must ensure that any AI-generated content is truthful, accurate, and unbiased. Prescribed Disclosure Language Each instance of AI-generated content must be preceded by the statement “[The following content was prepared using artificial intelligence]” and must end with “[End
Read More
November 24, 2025
A recent warning from the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) against cryptocurrency use upholds the country’s ongoing strategy of enforcing strict prohibitions on unauthorized cryptocurrency activities while also promoting the controlled development of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The CBM’s warning, issued November 16, 2025, reminded the public of announcements in May 2019 and a notification in May 2020 confirming that all online and offline cryptocurrency transactions are strictly prohibited. The CBM also clarified that no financial institution in Myanmar is authorized to deal with digital currencies. The warning highlighted global risks, such as money laundering, scams, tax evasion, hacking, and severe financial losses caused by price volatility and insufficient regulation. The CBM urged the public to use only legitimate banking channels and avoid illegal cryptocurrency activities. The warning comes five months after the CBM issued a notification announcing the formation of the Central Committee for the Issuance of a Central Bank Digital Currency. This committee includes senior CBM officials, representatives from relevant ministries and the banking sector, and technology experts. Its main role is to research CBDC models, test secure digital payment systems, and ensure that any future implementation aligns with Myanmar’s monetary policy and financial stability objectives. Taken together, these two actions illustrate the CBM’s continued pursuit of its dual strategy to promote innovation through CBDC development while prohibiting cryptocurrency use. Businesses should note that while CBDC pilot programs may appear in the future, cryptocurrencies remain off-limits.
Read More
November 14, 2025
Interest in data center land acquisition has increased significantly over the past year, with a notable rise in inquiries from investors seeking to establish digital infrastructure in Thailand. Although the sector is still in its early stages, this emerging wave of development represents a significant shift in Thailand’s technology infrastructure landscape, driven primarily by multinational technology companies and operators looking to expand their regional presence. Project Development The data center sector in Thailand is attracting a diverse range of international investors, though with clear geographic patterns. Most investors are from China, Singapore, and Japan, with some additional interest from countries outside Asia, including the United States and Europe. This investor base consists primarily of multinational tech companies and operators seeking to establish new facilities rather than acquire existing assets. Data center business activities are also a sector promoted by Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI), which offers investors both tax and nontax privileges as well as exemptions to foreign investment and land-ownership restrictions. Projects currently underway are still largely in the land acquisition and construction phase. Unlike more mature markets where many facilities are operational and generating revenue, the predominant focus in Thailand remains on securing suitable land and beginning the building process. This means that while interest is high and land assembly is accelerating, the sector as a whole has not yet reached the operational phase that will ultimately drive licensing applications and full regulatory compliance. The licensing process itself remains at an early stage, as most projects must first complete their facilities before applying for the specific licenses required from the telecommunications authority. Once the facilities are built, the next critical step will be obtaining these telecommunications licenses, which are mandatory for data center operations. Legal and Regulatory Considerations The complexity of data center development in Thailand requires
Read More