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​ 

February 23, 2024
The newly released Licensing 2024 guide, published by Lexology Panoramic, features a chapter on Vietnam by four licensing specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins. The comparative guide provides companies and other interested readers with information on licensing law and practice in various countries around the world. Licensing 2024 provides detailed information on the following topics: Restrictions, laws and licensing arrangements 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 Vietnam chapter was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, partner and head of Tilleke & Gibbins’ trademark team in Vietnam; Son Thai Hoang, trademark executive; and Chi Lan Dang, associate, of Tilleke & Gibbins’ trademark team, along with corporate and commercial senior associate Tu Ngoc Trinh, who has extensive experience in franchising and competition law. The Vietnam chapter is available below as a PDF. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand chapter to Licensing 2024. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2024 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
February 23, 2024
Two of Tilleke & Gibbins’ licensing specialists in Bangkok have contributed the Thailand chapter to the newly issued Licensing 2024, 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 2024. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2024 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
February 22, 2024
Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) has released its announcement dated February 9, 2024, stating that it is now accepting applications for registration of copyrights and related rights under the Copyright Law of 2019. The Copyright Law of 2019 entered into force on October 31, 2023, replacing the old Copyright Act of 1914. The Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued the Copyright Rules in Notification No. 70/2023 on October 23, 2023, setting the required procedures for copyright-related matters in Myanmar. Forms required for registration and related actions regarding copyrights and related rights were issued by the MOC under Notification No. 73/2023 on November 20, 2023. Regarding the official fees, the IP Agency issued Notification No. 1/2024 on February 13, 2024. While copyright protection arises automatically without the need for registration, rights holders can voluntarily apply for registration of their works under the new framework of the Copyright Law of 2019 if they wish to secure stronger evidence of ownership for their works in Myanmar. Applications can be filed by the applicant electronically, in person or through a local representative, or by post. Applicants incorporated or residing outside Myanmar must appoint a local representative to file the application with the IPD. For more information on the voluntary registration of copyrights and related rights in Myanmar, or for assistance in applying to register copyrights, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More
February 19, 2024
Indonesia is a multicultural country with diverse ethnicities, cultures, and religions, leading to a wealth of cultural creations, knowledge, and traditions. Where such creations, knowledge, and traditions are owned by a certain community and have become part of the identity of that community, they may be protected by Indonesian law as communal intellectual property. One type of communal intellectual property is traditional knowledge. A well-known example is a form of martial arts known as pencak silat. This martial art was traditionally performed when welcoming guests, usually accompanied by gondang borogong music, and is registered as traditional knowledge from Riau, Indonesia. New Regulation on Communal Intellectual Property Traditional knowledge used to be regulated by a number of laws, including three separate ones on copyright, patents, and cultural advancement. However, in December 2022, the Indonesian government issued Government Regulation No. 56 of 2022 on Communal Intellectual Property (“GR 56/2022”), establishing a single set of rules for the definition and protection of traditional knowledge. One of the aims of the regulation is to encourage the registration of communal intellectual property, which was part of the government’s priority program for 2023. Under GR 56/2022, traditional knowledge is defined as ideas and concepts that contain local values resulting from real experiences of interacting with the environment and that are developed continuously and passed on to the next generation. The regulation recognizes the following categories of traditional knowledge: Traditional methods or processes; Technical proficiency; Skills; Learning; Agricultural knowledge; Technical knowledge; Ecological knowledge; Knowledge related to genetic resources; Knowledge of medicine, traditional medicine, and healing procedures; Economic systems; Social organization systems; Knowledge related to the behavior of nature and the universe; and Other forms of knowledge. Traditional knowledge is a moral right belonging to the community, requiring any user of the traditional knowledge to acknowledge its
Read More