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 6, 2025
Vietnam’s government is currently undergoing a significant restructuring, consolidating and eliminating various agencies with the aim of streamlining operations and increasing efficiency. The restructuring will bring notable changes to the country’s intellectual property (IP) landscape. We discuss below key developments that may influence IP protection and enforcement in Vietnam in the coming years. Mergers of Ministries One of the most notable changes in the restructuring is the merger of several ministries, including the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Office is a unit under MOST; therefore, this merger is expected to impact various aspects of IP administration and enforcement. With the newly merged ministry—which is expected to retain the name of MOST—actively supporting the development of the digital economy, further advancements in digital tools for IP administration and prosecution are anticipated. This could include enhancements in e-filing, online procedures, and digital payment systems, contributing to greater accessibility and efficiency in IP-related services. Domain name disputes can also expect to see a more coordinated approach under the new ministry. Previously, jurisdiction over domain name disputes was divided between MIC and MOST, sometimes leading to procedural complexities. With both areas now under a single ministry, these matters are expected to be handled more seamlessly, potentially with a model aligned with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Structural Changes in Inspection Authorities The restructuring also affects inspection authorities responsible for IP enforcement, particularly those under MOST and the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (MOCST). These changes may cause temporary delays in administrative enforcement actions: The MOST Inspectorate, which handles industrial property violations, may experience slower enforcement during the transition. The MOCST Inspectorate, responsible for copyright enforcement, may face similar disruptions. However, these delays are expected to be temporary,
Read More
February 26, 2025
Thailand ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on December 21, 1959, with the Convention coming into force on March 20, 1960. This ratification was a significant step in aligning Thailand’s arbitration framework with international standards, facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the country. In Thailand, the enforcement of both domestic and international arbitral awards is governed by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), which is based on the first version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 (as opposed to the latest version from 2006). However, unlike Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore, Thailand is not an UNCITRAL Model Law country. While Thailand’s Arbitration Act is influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law, it incorporates certain local contexts that require interpretation alongside Thai court rulings. The Arbitration Act also confirms the authority of arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures, reinforcing tribunals’ power in managing disputes effectively. Additionally, the act incorporates principles from the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). This article explores the key procedural steps, timeframes, and practical challenges associated with the enforcement of arbitral awards under Thailand’s legal framework. Procedures for Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Thailand The enforcement of arbitral awards in Thailand follows the procedures outlined in the Arbitration Act: Application to the competent court: Under the Arbitration Act, parties seeking enforcement must submit a petition to the Thai courts within three years of the award having become enforceable. The application must include the original or certified copies of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement, along with translations if necessary. In Thailand, the choice of court for filing the arbitral award depends on the nature of the disputed contract. If the contract concerns
Read More
February 3, 2025
Thailand’s aim of hosting entertainment complexes that include casinos is moving forward with the cabinet’s approval in principle of the draft Entertainment Complex Business Act on January 13, 2025. In fact, Thailand has studied the pros and cons of allowing the operation of entertainment complexes since March 2019. Though the initial surge of global interest died down during the COVID-19 pandemic, the country renewed its efforts with the recent draft law. This is part of the government’s aim of bringing parts of the informal economy (or shadow economy) and the underground economy—estimated to be more than 50% of Thailand’s GDP—into the revenue system. While many authors have provided analyses of the bill’s contents, this article explores how the enforcement of the Entertainment Complex Bill after its passage would relate to various aspects of intellectual property (IP) in the casino business in the context of Thai law. Below are some examples of the potential effects of the draft legislation on IP rights in Thailand. Public Order and Public Policy Under Thai law, contradiction of public order, good morality, or public policy is grounds for denying IP protection. With the eventual passage and enforcement of the Entertainment Complex Bill, IP rights related to gaming that used to be regarded as contrary to the public order and received no protection under the current law would become eligible for legal protection and considered registrable under the law. This is similar to what happened recently with cannabis in Thailand. Legalization of cannabis opened up pathways for trademark and patent protection in this industry. IP in the casino industry encompasses a wide range of assets, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. These IP rights protect the unique features of casino games, gaming machines, software, and branding elements. For instance, in Thailand patents can cover
Read More
January 29, 2025
The fourth round of negotiations of the EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement (FTA) wrapped up in Bangkok in November 2024. Now that the latest summary report is out, it is worth highlighting some of the intellectual property (IP)-related changes we might see once the chapter is complete. Copyright If Thailand were to agree to follow the EU proposal, we would see the term of protection for copyright extended. Currently under Thai law, protection is the life of the author plus fifty years. This is twenty years less than the EU proposal. It seems that copyright is one area the two sides have yet to agree on, and it is no wonder as agreeing to follow Thai law would deprive authors from the EU of an additional twenty years of protection post-death. On the other hand, Thailand agreeing to the EU proposal would likely result in legislative change in the country to align domestic law with the FTA. We may also see more robust and streamlined collective management organizations (CMOs) in Thailand. The current proposal calls for each party to promote cooperation between their CMOs, which would extend to transparency over their running, including revenue and representation agreements. Thailand does currently have CMOs within the territory, and the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has a voluntary CMO code. However, it is unclear whether existing practice will be sufficient for EU rightsholders. CMOs have been an area that is difficult to regulate as there has been a balancing act between tightening the examination of reporting and not wanting to limit the freedom of rightsholders and how they commercialize their IP. Trademarks There is a fair amount of overlap between the Trademark Act in Thailand and the EU proposals. However, it is unclear to what degree the existing laws would satisfy the requests
Read More