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 30, 2024
A bank guarantee or bond is a powerful tool that provides contractual parties with security and assurance. Bank guarantees are commitments made by a bank (as a guarantor) on behalf of a customer (as an obligor) to a beneficiary to ensure that certain contractual obligations will be fulfilled. If the customer fails to comply with these obligations, the bank can compensate the beneficiary up to the amount specified in the bank guarantee. Bank guarantees are widely used in Thailand as a form of security and are common in construction agreements and government procurement contracts, among others. If the beneficiary (e.g., a project owner) concludes that the counterparty in the agreement (e.g., a contractor) has breached the underlying contract in some way, the beneficiary will demand payment from the bank pursuant to the guarantee. Collecting on a Guarantee and Preventing Payment In the context of construction and procurement agreements, there are two types of bank guarantees—conditional and unconditional. A conditional bank guarantee means that the project owner must satisfy certain agreed-upon conditions (e.g., provision of proof of the breach, proof of damages, or even consent from the contractor) to demand payment. An unconditional bank guarantee means that the bank must compensate the project owner for the demanded amount (up to the limit specified in the bank guarantee) without any conditions. When a project owner concludes that a contractor has breached the underlying contract (often for nonperformance or failure to comply with a representation or warranty), the project owner will demand payment from the bank holding the guarantee. Upon receiving such a demand, Thai banks will usually inform the contractor and ask if it has any objections. Even if the bank guarantee is unconditional, in practice, a bank may be reluctant to make payment if the contractor, as the bank’s customer,
Read More
May 28, 2024
On March 1, 2024, the Lao official gazette published the newly amended Law on Intellectual Property No. 50/NA, dated November 20, 2023 (the “2023 Law on IP”). The timing of this update is consistent with Laos’ history of providing regular revisions to the country’s IP legislation since the enactment of the first Law on Intellectual Property by the National Assembly in 2007 (the “2007 Law on IP”). These revisions include amendments in 2011, 2017, and now 2023. Prior to 2007, intellectual property (IP) protection was granted through decrees issued by the prime minister’s office for selected types of IP: trademarks, patents, petty patents, and industrial designs. The 2007 Law on IP marked a significant shift by introducing comprehensive legislation to protect industrial property rights, new plant varieties, copyright, and related rights. It laid the foundations for IP legislation in Laos, with the primary objectives of promoting and protecting intellectual creativity and attracting foreign investment. Since 2007, the enactment of new IP laws has not always entailed significant amendments to the existing IP framework; however, it frequently serves as an opportunity to introduce long-considered mechanisms. For example, the amended Law on Intellectual Property No. 38/NA, dated November 15, 2017 (“2017 Law on IP”) introduced, among other provisions, the possibility of opposition by a third party after the formal examination of a trademark application by the examiner. The 2023 Law on IP brought additional changes and updates to the IP regulatory landscape in Laos. Some of the most notable of these are highlighted below. Trademarks While Laos already introduced a new mechanism for online trademark registration in November 2023—about a month before enacting the 2023 Law on IP—the new law did introduce some noteworthy changes. Well-Known Marks The 2023 Law on IP appears to ease the burden of proof for establishing
Read More
May 28, 2024
Under Thai law, namely the Criminal Procedural Code, an injured person may bring a criminal case to a criminal court without having a public prosecutor file the case for him or her. After the court conducts an inquiry into the case, the court considers whether to accept the case for further trial and determine whether the defendant should be penalized accordingly. Private parties involved in certain types of cases, such as labor disputes or shareholder disputes, may find this a common channel to pursue. Criminal law in Thailand recently underwent a significant change, as new legislation changed numerous criminal offenses to become phinai-fine offenses instead. However, as this is a relatively new development, there are still instances in which plaints involving phinai fines are still being submitted to the court by these private injured persons as criminal cases. But this raises the issue of whether the court can proceed with such cases. For over a year, Thailand has enforced the Act on Phinai Fine Proceedings B.E. 2565 (2022) (ACFP) as a new legal measure to decriminalize certain types of fines for criminal penalties with less-serious offenses to phinai offenses, which results in phinai-related offenders having to pay only fines instead of facing the entire criminal procedures and penalties under the Thai Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, including bail submission, travel restrictions, imprisonment, and a criminal record. What happens to ongoing trials in court for phinai offenses? The ACFP automatically changed criminal offenses under 204 pieces of legislation, including certain offenses under the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), the Determining Offenses Relating to Registered Partnership, Limited Partnership, Limited Company, Association, and Foundation Act B.E. 2499 (1956), the Labor Relations Act B.E. 2518 (1975), the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (1992), and
Read More
May 16, 2024
On May 4, 2024, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 46/2024/ND-CP (“Decree 46”) amending and supplementing certain articles of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP dated August 29, 2013, on administrative sanctions in industrial property, as amended and supplemented in 2021 (“Decree 99”). Decree 46, which will come into force on July 1, 2024, is designed to bring Decree 99 in line with the amended IP Law of 2022. Some of the notable amendments of Decree 46 are discussed below. New Infringing Acts Decree 46 added the following new infringing acts subject to sanctions, which had not been set out in the former decree: Use of patents, utility solutions, layout designs, or industrial designs without paying compensation according to the provisions on temporary rights specified in Article 131 of the amended IP Law. Accepting a trademark license not in the form of a written contract in the case of using the licensed trademark on goods or packaging. Failure to notify clients of costs, charges, and fees related to procedures for establishing and protecting industrial property rights. Deceiving clients in the course of entering into and performing industrial property representative service contracts, but not to the extent of criminal prosecution, or forcing customers to enter into and perform industrial property representative service contracts. Although these acts are not common occurrences, it is nevertheless important to have clear regulations in order to ensure consistency with the amended IP Law and overcome difficulties and obstacles if such acts are committed in practice. Amendments and Supplements Decree 46 adopted amendments and supplements to main sanctions, additional sanctions, and remedial measures, specifically: The monetary fine imposed for violations against trade secrets is VND 50 million to VND 100 million (approx. USD 2,000 – USD 4,000), a large increase compared to the VND 5 million to VND 15
Read More