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​ 

January 21, 2025
A proposal to establish a specialized Intellectual Property Court in Vietnam has been a topic of significant interest among IP practitioners for the past 20 years. It was thus a major breakthrough when the new Law on the Organization of People’s Courts was ratified in 2024, stipulating in Article 4.1(dd) that the Vietnamese court system would include a specialized first-instance IP Court. The new law took effect on January 1, 2025, replacing the Law on the Organization of People’s Courts of 2014, A groundbreaking law This breakthrough can be viewed from multiple perspectives. First of all, in terms of organization, this is the first time, after numerous considerations, that Vietnam has officially recognized the importance of the IP field and the need to establish a specialized adjudicative body due to the field’s unique nature. The establishment of a specialized first-instance IP Court is expected to lead to fundamental changes in the practice of developing and applying IP law. While the establishment of IP rights such as trademarks, patents, and plant varieties is managed by administrative agencies such as the Intellectual Property Office, the Copyright Office, and the Crop Production Department, which seem unlikely to change their functions and tasks, there could be significant changes in the enforcement of these rights, which has been a persistent issue in Vietnam’s IP law system. Thus far, in practice, the enforcement of IP rights in Vietnam has relied overwhelmingly on administrative measures over civil measures. Civil measures, typically involving court proceedings under which the matter will be submitted to a court for settlement, are not appealing to disputing parties, especially IP rights owners. The absence of a specialized court has led to many IP cases being handled by judges without any knowledge or experience in this specialized field, resulting in confusion, misconceptions about
Read More
December 20, 2024
With intellectual property playing an ever-increasing role in economic development, the need to harness, promote, and protect ASEAN innovation remains urgent as integration progresses. Among its objectives, the ASEAN Economic Community aims to transform the region into a hub of innovation and competitiveness and ensure that the region remains an active participant in the international IP community. With ASEAN member states increasing IP generation and further committing to global IP regimes, the region is increasingly looking toward sophisticated IP ownership and holding structures. IP Holding Companies ASEAN-based companies continue to centralize ownership of their IP assets in offshore holding and licensing vehicles—an approach multinational companies headquartered elsewhere have been using for a number of years. IP-intensive companies look to locate their IP portfolios in low-tax jurisdictions with strong IP registration and protection laws. The company then licenses the IP to operating companies in the group or to third-party licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors, and other partners in return for royalties or license fees. These special-purpose vehicles are typically referred to as IP holding companies. IP holding companies are popular because they can help corporations minimize tax, gain tax benefits or concessions, protect IP from bankruptcy or other claims against the parent company, and focus management attention on the IP portfolio as an income generator. Tax and IP Holding Companies Tax is the primary reason most companies park their IP in separate IP holding vehicles. Sometimes, companies choose to establish their IP holding company in a no-tax, low-tax, or preferred-tax jurisdiction close to their home country. The selected jurisdiction should also be a country with a large and well-established tax treaty network. Double taxation treaties are key considerations in jurisdiction shopping. If the IP assets need to be pledged as security for future borrowings or if they are to be included
Read More
December 20, 2024
Closing out the year, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has gifted green innovators with a chance to take a faster route for examining their patent and petty patent applications under the “Target Patent Fast-Track” program. This route prioritizes environmentally sustainable inventions, and significantly accelerates the preliminary and substantive examinations of selected applications at no additional official fee. The program was publicly announced on December 2, 2024, in the DIP Notification on the Expansion of Technological Fields under the Target Patent Fast-Track Program, which took effect on December 15, 2024. The expedited process is open to both Thai and foreign applicants, provided the requirements in the notification are met. Under the fast-track program, a first office action for qualifying applications can be expected within 6 months during the preliminary examination stage. These applications will also be issued a first office action within just 12 months in the substantive examination period after publication. The DIP begins accepting formal requests for selection to participate in the program from January 1, 2025, onward. Each applicant can submit only one application per fast-track patent program per month, as selected applications cannot belong to the same applicant. No more than 10 applications per month will be chosen to participate in the fast-track route, with the results being announced on the 5th of every following month. To be eligible for selection, applications must comply with all the fast-track requirements specified in the recent DIP notification, particularly: The patent or petty patent application must have been filed with the DIP for at least three months, or a substantive examination request has already been filed in the case of patent applications. Each application must contain no more than 10 claims throughout its participation in the program. The application must be electronically filed in Thailand first or through
Read More
December 18, 2024
The EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement is drawing a lot of interest as the fourth round recently concluded in Bangkok. Despite negotiations starting in 2013, there was a ten-year pause before we saw the first round of negotiations end in September 2023. The initial plan was for four rounds of negotiations, with the free trade agreement (FTA) finalized in 2025. However, following the fourth round it is clear that the negotiations are still ongoing. Now, the question is: how much closer are the EU and Thailand to concluding their FTA? The EU initially submitted 13 chapter proposals for the FTA, followed by a further 12, and these became the springboard for the negotiations. Given the complexity of agreeing on an accord of this size, there will probably be additional proposals submitted in 2025. These chapters have seen sector-specific negotiation groups formed, and although it has been difficult to truly gauge the status, steady progress has been made in each. Arguably one of the biggest points of discussion pertains to the customs process for imports and exports. Both sides aim to align their practices in relation to rules of origin and custom rates, with preferential tariff treatments offered to goods originating from Thailand and the EU, as well as talks of eliminating or reducing relevant taxes. The desire for a faster customs clearance can be seen in EU proposals for clearance of goods on arrival. Although there has been progress in agreeing to a more simplified customs process, more work needs to be done before we hear news of the agreed-upon fees and charges, or confirmation of what goods would be allowed temporary admission. When we consider customs clearance, it is important to also examine what this FTA could mean for rightsholders. One piece of good news is that it appears
Read More