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​ 

May 27, 2025
With the fifth round of negotiations between Thailand and the EU for a free trade agreement (FTA) now complete and the sixth round scheduled for June, both sides appear to be well on the way to meeting the desired Christmas 2025 deadline. The latest discussions were held in Brussels, and Pichai Naripthaphan, Thailand’s commerce minister, announced that the two sides have reached agreement on two chapters: Customs and Trade Facilitation, and Sustainable Food Systems. No details have been released regarding what concessions were made to reach the agreement, but reports suggest that good progress is being made in all remaining chapters. Market access for goods has reportedly become the current focus of negotiations. The first draft of goods and services that will be exempted is expected in early June, which will be welcome news for importers. While the first draft cannot be expected to represent the finalized list, it will at least provide an indication of the goods and services likely to benefit from tariff exemption. Similarly, both sides have begun to share the geographical indications that they wish to be protected, which will be of great interest to producers and manufacturers in Thailand and the EU. This is especially true considering the upcoming amendments to the Geographical Indications Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003) expected in Thailand, as one of the key changes under the prospective amendment is to enable easier registration for geographical indications protected under international agreements. Other updates from the intellectual property (IP) chapter show good progress in relation to copyright and civil and border enforcement of IP rights. Both sides are also continuing to examine possible bridging proposals for unresolved issues. Given the substantial differences in IP laws between Thailand and the EU, how negotiators will bridge this gap remains at the forefront of most
Read More
May 2, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the latest edition of Doing Business in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that offers an overview of key legal considerations for companies operating in jurisdictions worldwide. The contribution outlines the country’s legal and regulatory framework for foreign investment and business operations and reflects the latest legislative developments. The chapter addresses the following core topics: Legal system: Structure of the courts and the codified nature of Thai law. Foreign investment: Business restrictions under the Foreign Business Act, sector-specific regulations, exchange control rules, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Overview of partnerships, private and public limited companies, and other legal entities. Employment: Labor protections, employment contracts, foreign worker requirements, and termination procedures. Tax: Corporate and personal income tax, indirect taxes, and tax obligations for residents and non-residents. Intellectual property: Registration and enforcement of patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights. Data protection: Key provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act and related compliance obligations. Competition law: Regulatory framework under the Trade Competition Act. Anti-bribery and corruption: Relevant legislation and enforcement mechanisms. E-commerce and digital business: Legal regime for online transactions and digital platforms. Marketing and advertising: Consumer protection laws and regulations affecting advertising and marketing practices. Product regulation and liability: Safety standards, liability regimes, and roles of enforcement authorities. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The insurance and reinsurance guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the guide, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
April 29, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually
Read More
April 25, 2025
Vietnam is on the cusp of a major judicial reform with significant implications for intellectual property (IP) litigators. A draft law, expected to be passed in mid-2025, will restructure the court system into a three-tiered judicial hierarchy while retaining the current two-tiered trial structure. The reforms include the anticipated establishment of a specialized IP court and a reallocation of jurisdiction that may fundamentally change how and where IP disputes are resolved. From 63 to 34: Fewer Provinces, Fewer Courts – But Wider Reach Under the new model, the judiciary will be organized into three levels: (i) the Supreme People’s Court, with three newly established appellate courts in Hanoi, Da Nang, and Ho Chi Minh City, (ii) the 34 provincial-level People’s Courts (following a reduction from 63 provinces to 34 due to administrative consolidation), and (iii) a newly created tier of regional-level courts (tòa án khu vực) that will replace the existing district-level courts. Each regional court will encompass several district-level courts within a province. The number of regional courts in each province will be determined based on the number of districts following a planned reduction. While the number of provincial-level courts will decrease, the newly established regional-level courts will be granted expanded jurisdiction. Notably, these courts will have first-instance jurisdiction over a broad range of civil, commercial, and administrative matters. In criminal cases, they will handle offenses punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, while more serious crimes will remain under the jurisdiction of provincial-level courts. For IP litigators, this likely means that first-instance cases, especially civil infringement disputes, will shift from the provincial level to the lower regional level. These regional courts will become the new battleground for IP enforcement. Same Two-Tier Adjudication, Different Game Board While the judicial structure is evolving, the core adjudicative framework remains unchanged:
Read More