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​ 

March 13, 2025
Licensing specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok have contributed the Thailand chapter to the newly issued Licensing 2025, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to licensing in various jurisdictions around the world. The Thailand chapter covers the following topics: Laws and licensing arrangements: Unfair Contract Terms Act, Trade Competition Act, pre-contractual disclosure, registration of international licensing, implied obligations, Civil and Commercial Code, Trademark Act, Patent Act, Trade Secrets Act Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Thailand chapter was authored by Alan Adcock, partner, and Kasama Sriwatanakul, counsel, both in the Thailand regulatory affairs team. The full Thailand chapter is available below as a PDF. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to Licensing 2025. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2025 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
March 12, 2025
In November 2024, Thai Prime Minister Paethongtarn Shinawatra unveiled ambitious plans to enhance tax incentives for foreign film productions during a networking reception in Los Angeles, coinciding with her visit to the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Lima, Peru. This event, attended by Motion Picture Association executives and leaders from top US film companies, marked a significant commitment to boosting foreign investment in Thailand’s film industry. Thailand’s Department of Tourism (DOT) prioritized the initiative by updating the Announcement on Guidelines, Procedures, and Conditions for Applying for Benefits Under the Incentive Measures for Foreign Film Production in Thailand in December 2024 to further position Thailand as a destination for large-scale international film and television productions. Key Amendments to Film Incentives under the 2024 Announcement The 2024 announcement introduced major changes, including (1) removal of the rebate cap, previously set at THB 150 million (approx. USD 4.5 million) per project, enabling rebates based on total qualified spending, and (2) an increase in cash rebate rates. The maximum allowable cash rebate rate was increased to 30 percent from the previous cap of 20 percent. The base rate of 15 percent remains unchanged. The primary incentive available under the 2024 announcement is a 15 percent cash rebate on qualified spending in Thailand of at least THB 50 million (approx. USD 1.5 million). On top of this primary incentive, additional incentives are available; however, the total possible cash rebate is capped at 30 percent, and the additional incentives can only amount to an added 15 percent. Also, the total rebate (including both primary and additional incentives) for films with a budget of less than THB 100 million (approx. USD 3 million) is capped at 25%. To obtain a higher rebate rate, productions may apply for the following additional incentives: Compliance Requirements Foreign production companies
Read More
March 6, 2025
On February 18, 2025, the Thai Senate approved an amendment to the Act on the Establishment of and Procedures for the Tax Court. This follows the July 2024 approval by the Thai cabinet and subsequent preparation of supporting secondary legislation. This important amendment to procedural law, once it takes effect, will extend the exclusive jurisdictional powers of the Tax Court to all criminal tax, customs, and excise tax claims in addition to the court’s existing jurisdiction over all such civil claims. The amendment, while now formally approved by the legislature, is awaiting the king’s signature and will take effect 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette. Based upon its projected publication date, the amendment will likely take effect by the end of the third quarter of this year. This development is set to offer a more sophisticated Tax Court litigation process for highly specialized and often complex criminal tax and customs claims, something with which Thailand’s traditional criminal courts have struggled. It also ensures that all tax and customs matters are adjudicated before the same court, saving time, party costs, and judicial resources. This appears likely to result in more consistent adjudication of criminal tax and customs disputes, a benefit for the Thai government and party litigants alike. Any ongoing criminal tax and customs claims already commenced with the respective criminal courts on the date on which the amendment becomes effective will remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of those criminal courts. The Tax Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over all other claims. This important legislative change offers those managing or otherwise facing civil and/or criminal Thai tax or customs disputes the opportunity to more effectively plan and execute a uniform defense strategy before a single, qualified forum.
Read More