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 28, 2020

CPTPP Calling: Changes to Domain Name Dispute Resolution in Vietnam?

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC) is drafting a decree to amend Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (Decree 72), one of the key pieces of legislation affecting online business and activities in Vietnam. Among other things, the draft decree is expected to revise the current regime of domain name dispute resolution to bring it in conformity with Vietnam’s obligations under the CPTPP. However, it seems the lawmakers have not yet addressed all the pitfalls the current regime is posing to rights holders and enforcement bodies.

Changes

Under the CPTPP’s requirements, Vietnam must introduce a regime for domain name dispute resolution in line with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings, particularly the principles established under this policy. Shortly after the effective date of the CPTPP in Vietnam (January 14, 2019), Vietnam passed an amendment to its IP Law, but left out the issue of domain name dispute resolution, deferring the change to the MIC’s revision of Decree 72.

In fact, in the draft decree, the MIC focused only on revising the elements of domain name disputes to model them after the UDRP elements. Specifically, in order for authorities to rule on a domain name dispute, the complainant must prove the following three elements:

  • the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, trade name, geographical indication, or personal name of the complainant;
  • the registrant has no rights and interest in the domain name; and
  • the registrant is registering the domain name in bad faith.

The MIC goes noticeably further than UDRP when it affords the right to fight against cyber-squatting not only to trademark owners but also the owners of trade names and geographical indications.

The current Decree 72 (particularly, Article 16.2) lists six grounds on which the authorities can rely to rule on cyber-squatting. However, the provision is structured ambiguously as it is not clear whether all six grounds must be established or if just one of the grounds suffices to find cyber-squatting. The new change (mostly a change to the structure of the provision) sheds light on how to interpret the regulation. The complainant now must prove three elements, not six, and not one. However, without retroactive effect, things would change only when the draft decree takes force in the near future. Disputes arising during the purview of the prevailing Decree 72 still fall into the land of uncertainty.

No change

In fact, the revision of Article 16.2 falls short of IP rights holders’ expectations and still does not fully comply with the CPTPP requirements. Pursuant to the CPTPP (Article 18.28 of the IP Chapter), the new regime for settling domain name disputes must, among other things:

  • be designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and at low cost;
  • not be overly burdensome; and
  • not preclude resorting to judicial proceedings.

It is clear that apart from judicial proceedings (civil suits), the CPTPP requires Vietnam to introduce a time-effective, cost-efficient, and non-cumbersome mechanism of domain name dispute resolution. The draft decree fails to do so. The current mechanism as set out under Decree 72 remains unchanged, mentioning only civil suits, negotiation, and arbitration. Though arbitration seems to be the most relevant, it does completely satisfy the CPTPP requirement. In fact, it is quite infeasible as both the respondent and the complainant must agree to arbitration.

The MIC still dissents to the administrative procedures as set out under the IP Law, Decree 99/2013/ND-CP, and Joint Circular No. 14/2016/TTLT-BTTTT-BKHCN between the MIC and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)—laws mainly drafted by the MOST. Therefore, it appears the MIC intentionally left out administrative procedures as a mechanism of domain name dispute resolution from the draft decree. The current regime for administrative procedures, of course, does not fully tie in with the UDRP proceedings. However, it would be efficient to start off by including administrative procedures in the draft decree as the procedures, to some extent, meet the CPTPP requirement.

Recommendations

In addition to introducing a new forum for dispute resolution or simply modifying the current administrative procedures, the draft decree should also address other issues that are driving settlement of domain name disputes into stagnation. The draft decree should expressly provide for an automatic lock of domain names during enforcement actions. The draft should additionally allow for an immediate transfer of the domain names once the rulings/judgments take force. Currently, the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center (VNNIC), an agency administering country-code top‐level domains for Vietnam, still declines to transfer disputed domain names to plaintiffs even when the plaintiff has an enforcement judgment from a court.

In all, the current version of the draft decree does not yet effectively prevent the current pitfalls of settling domain name disputes. Given the incredible growth of integration of the internet into society, it is time the MIC and MOST set aside any differences, bridged the gaps between them, and introduced a truly effective tool to address cyber-squatting.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
Read More
January 30, 2026
On December 26, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 341/2025/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for violations of copyright and related rights (Decree 341), with an effective date of February 15, 2026. The new decree replaces Decree No. 131/2013/ND-CP, as amended, and represents the first comprehensive revision of the administrative enforcement framework in this area in eight years. Legislative Context and Objectives Decree 341 reflects Vietnam’s evolving copyright and related-rights framework, particularly in light of the country’s commitments under bilateral, regional, and multilateral treaties governing the digital environment. While the decree retains a number of provisions from the previous regime, it also introduces significant amendments to infringing acts, penalty thresholds, remedial measures, and enforcement procedures. The primary objectives of the new decree are to (i) enhance the deterrent effect of administrative sanctions; (ii) harmonize sanctions with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property and criminal law principles; and (iii) address enforcement challenges arising from online and cross-border exploitation of copyrighted works. Expanded Scope of Sanctionable Subjects Under Decree 341, administrative sanctions apply not only to Vietnamese entities committing infringing acts within Vietnam, but also to Vietnamese and foreign entities that commit acts of infringement on the internet where the protected content is accessed, consumed, or exploited by users in Vietnam. This expansion reflects the realities of cross-border digital exploitation. However, the decree does not yet provide precise definitions of key terms such as “users” or “consumers” of digital content in Vietnam, which may require further regulatory clarification. Monetary Penalties and Penalty Structure The statutory maximum fines remain unchanged, at VND 250 million for individuals and VND 500 million for organizations, but the penalty framework is substantially restructured. Fines are now calibrated based on three core criteria: (i) the amount of illegal profit obtained; (ii) the level of
Read More
January 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law, despite being amended in 2022, underwent another significant revision at the end of 2025. The latest amendment aimed to address five major policy objectives set by the Vietnamese government, including promoting innovation, digital transformation, and international integration. Among the most notable changes in the 2025 IP Law, which takes effect on 1 April 2026, is the expansion of industrial design protection under Article 4.13. The revised definition now includes partial designs and intangible designs, marking a transformative shift in Vietnam’s industrial design regime. This change has particularly significant implications on designs classified under Class 32 of the Locarno Classification—which covers graphic designs, logos, ornamentation, surface patterns, arrangements, and other intangible products. These designs, previously excluded from protection in Vietnam, are now recognized under the new legal framework. Background: Status of Class 32 Designs Before 2026 Th Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam currently applies the 13th edition of the Locarno Classification for industrial design filings. However, not all classes in this system have historically been eligible for protection. Under the 2022 IP Law, Class 32 designs were explicitly excluded based on the following legal grounds: Definition under Article 4.13 (2022 IP Law): “An industrial design is the external appearance of a product or a component for assembly into a complex product, expressed in shapes, lines, colors, or a combination thereof, and visible during the exploitation of the product’s utility or the complex product.” Product requirements under Article 21.2 of Circular 23/2023/TT-BKHCN: A product is defined as an object, a tool, a device, or means, manufactured by industrial or handicraft methods, with clear structure and function. A component for assembly into a complex product must be capable of independent circulation and detachable from the complex product. Based on these definitions, Class 32 designs, such as graphical
Read More