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​ 

October 25, 2023
Indonesia and South Korea have opened a patent prosecution highway (PPH) mechanism that allows applicants to seek patent protection in Indonesia by basing their application on a granted Korean patent. The PPH was opened following the conclusion of two memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) on September 8, 2023. One of the MOUs is about comprehensive cooperation in the field of intellectual property, while the other spells out the details of the PPH mechanism. When requested, the PPH will help applicants speed up the examination process for their patent applications in Indonesia using the substantive examination results issued by the KIPO. This can substantially shorten the amount of time required for the examination process period from approximately two years (from the substantive examination request) to less than one year (from the PPH request). Similar to a PPH request under Indonesia’s existing PPH agreement for Japanese patents, applicants can file a PPH request based on a granted Korean patent after the Indonesian patent application is published and before the issuance of the first office action. Requests must be accompanied by the official fee of IDR 5 million (approx. USD 315) for filing a PPH request. The scope of cooperation between the DGIP and KIPO, as described by the other MOU, includes increasing the countries’ capacity, framework, protection, inspection, and utilization of intellectual property, as well as other cooperative activities. The countries will also exchange information on how to increase public awareness about the importance of protecting intellectual property. For more information on this new bilateral cooperation, or on any aspect of patent protection in Indonesia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected] or +6221 2971 8088.
Read More
October 20, 2023
On October 18, 2023, Myanmar’s State Administration Council (SAC) issued notifications announcing the enforcement date of the Industrial Design Law and Copyright Law, which were both enacted in 2019. Notifications No. 217/2023 and No. 218/2023 set October 31, 2023, as the effective date for the Industrial Design Law and the Copyright Law, respectively. These notifications mark the beginning of the substantive protection framework for industrial designs and copyrights in the country. Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce had already issued the Industrial Design Rules on September 29, 2023, laying out procedures and guidelines for registration of industrial designs under the Industrial Design Law. The next step will be the announcement of forms and official fees for conducting industrial design-related matters at Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD)—a step that is imminent now that the effective date of the law has been announced. Rights owners should therefore begin assessing their portfolios and preparing the requirements for applying for registration to secure statutory rights for their industrial designs in Myanmar. The protection of copyrights arises automatically without a mandatory registration process. However, when the new Copyright Law takes effect, replacing the old Copyright Act of 1914, rights owners will be able to voluntarily record their copyrights under the framework established by the new law. These recordals can provide stronger evidence of ownership in the event of a dispute over the copyright work. For more information on these developments, or to check on the latest updates to Myanmar’s legal framework for protecting intellectual property, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More
October 11, 2023
Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce has issued the Industrial Design Rules, which set up detailed procedures and guidelines for the registration of industrial designs under the Industrial Design Law. The announcement of the rules in Notification No. 67/2023, dated September 29, 2023, is a crucial development prior to the implementation of the Industrial Design Law, whose enforcement has been pending since its enactment in 2019. The newly issued Industrial Design Rules will come into effect on the day that the Industrial Design Law is first enforced. The rules set out the substantive procedures for industrial design-related matters, including appointment of representative, examination, opposition, priority claims, and registration, as well as assignment and licensing of industrial designs. Registration Applications Once the Industrial Design Law and Industrial Design Rules come into effect, and application fees and forms are available, individuals and legal entities can file applications to register industrial designs with the Intellectual Property Department electronically, in person (including via local representative), or by post. Applicants who are not incorporated or resident in Myanmar must appoint a local representative via the required form, which must be notarized by a notary public of the country where the applicant is incorporated or resides. Application Requirements Myanmar follows the latest Locarno Classification, established by the Locarno Agreement of 1968. Applications for registration of an industrial design can be in Myanmar or English language and must include the following: Applicant’s name, address, ID number (passport or Myanmar citizenship scrutiny card number for individuals, legal incorporation ID number for entities); Notarized form appointing a local representative, if applicable; Name, nationality, and address of the creator, if applicable, using the required form; Locarno Classification and subclassification for the product associated with the industrial design; Drawn, photographic, or graphic representation of the industrial design; Indication of the product described
Read More
October 10, 2023
As part of its continual work to improve Indonesia’s intellectual property (IP) e-filing system, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) makes regular updates and upgrades to the system. In recent months, the DGIP has implemented several important changes from previously used versions that applicants should be aware of when filing IP applications. Below is a summary of some key changes and updated requirements for applications using the IP e-filing system, grouped by IP type. Designs Drawings must be in JPG format only, and only one view is allowed per page. Once payment for the application has been made, no refund request is available. Only one figure is allowed for each design view, except for reference and perspective views. Patents For inventions already registered outside Indonesia through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the title of the invention in the application for registration in Indonesia must match the title of the invention as registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). All bibliographic data in the national phase application must match the information from the PCT international phase as listed on WIPO’s website. Excess claim fees must be paid at the time of filing the patent application. Trademarks Applicants must choose their desired goods and services from the list, and the wording used in the provided list is not editable. The DGIP frequently updates the list of goods and services, but there is no regular schedule for the updates to this database. It is very difficult to request the addition of goods or services to the list, especially if a similar alternative exists. Therefore, it is crucial for applicants to decide on the goods or services to indicate in the application as soon as possible before the list is updated, as goods and services are sometimes deleted from the list.
Read More