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​ 

April 21, 2026
Vietnam continues to refine its intellectual property framework to align with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). On March 31, 2026, the government issued Decree 100/2026/ND-CP (Decree 100), which substantially amends Decree 65/2023/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the IP Law (Decree 65). On the same day, the Ministry of Science and Technology released Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10), providing detailed procedural guidance and new forms. Both instruments took effect on April 1, 2026, along with the amended IP Law. While the updates touch on every IP right, trademark owners and brand strategists will find several practical and forward-looking changes that directly affect filing strategy, examination timelines, portfolio management, and enforcement readiness. 1. Fast-Track Substantive Examination for Eligible Applications One of the most business-friendly innovations is the new fast-track substantive examination pathway for applications meeting specified eligibility criteria. Successful fast-track applications enjoy a shortened substantive examination period of three months. This offers a significant competitive edge for tech-driven or regulated-sector brands. If the mark is identical or similar to a mark in another person’s trademark application with an earlier filing date in the case of a priority application that has not yet been processed, the fast-track process will return to the ordinary process. However, the law does not touch on cases where marks under fast-track examination face office action due to other reasons (i.e. lack of distinctiveness, confusingly similar to others’ copyright, trade name, industrial design, etc.) 2. AI-Generated Trademarks Receive Clear Protection Pathway Decree 100 explicitly addresses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in IP creation, amending Article 10a of Decree 65 to confirm that trademarks created with AI systems are fully protectable, provided they meet the standard requirements of registration. Trademarks face no additional “human authorship” hurdle (unlike patents or industrial designs). Brand owners
Read More
April 20, 2026
Myanmar’s industrial design registration regime has been steadily gaining momentum since the country officially began accepting applications under the Industrial Design Law of 2019. The Industrial Design Division of Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) has actively advanced examination and registration procedures, and as of March 2026, approximately 300 industrial design applications have been published in the IPD’s publicly accessible database—a meaningful milestone in the development of Myanmar’s emerging intellectual property framework. This figure reflects only published applications; additional filings remain pending and will be published after the conclusion of ongoing examination. Filing Requirements in Practice Compliance with a defined set of mandatory requirements is the foundation for filing a valid design application. These mandatory particulars must be provided at the time of filing in order to establish a filing date. These include the applicant’s and creator’s identifying details, a notarized appointment of representative form, the Locarno Classification of the associated product, and a set of graphic representations of the design across multiple standard views. Applicants must also provide a written description of the design and, where applicable, information relating to any priority claim or request for deferred publication. Filing fees are payable at the time of submission. Beyond these core requirements, applicants typically need to provide supplementary documentation, either at the time of filing or in response to a formality examination. This may include evidence of the applicant’s legal entitlement to the design—particularly where the applicant and creator are different parties—as well as supporting corporate and authorization documents. Where priority rights are claimed, the relevant documents must generally be submitted within three months of the Myanmar filing date, with certified English translations required for any non-English priority applications. The supplementary requirements may vary depending on the nature of the application and the examiner’s requests during the formality examination process.
Read More
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More
March 31, 2026
Vietnam’s most recent amendment of the Law on Intellectual Property (amended IP Law), passed by the National Assembly on December 10, 2025, and effective from April 1, 2026, represents one of the most significant updates to the IP Law in recent years. This amendment modernizes the IP framework, moving a step closer to international standards, while addressing the realities of Vietnam’s booming digital economy, e-commerce growth, and increasing foreign investment, which is crucial for Vietnam’s objective of complete economic transformation. For trademark practitioners, brand owners, and businesses, the changes are largely positive, as they promise faster processes, stronger enforcement tools—especially for online actions—and better commercialization options. However, they also introduce stricter requirements and a need for proactive preparation. Below are some of the most noteworthy changes in the amended IP Law related to trademarks. Significantly Shortened Timelines and Introduction of Fast-Track Examination The statutory timelines under the amended IP Law have been notably reduced: Substantive examination for trademarks is shortened from 9 months to 5 months (from the publication date). The publication period is shortened from 2 months to 1 month. A new fast-track mechanism allows substantive examination in as little as 3 months for qualifying applications (e.g., marks in actual use, facing infringement threats, or meeting government-specified criteria; details to be clarified in implementing regulations). The opposition period is shortened from 5 months to 3 months from publication. This is arguably the most welcome change. Vietnam’s IP Office has long faced criticism for lengthy backlogs, often stretching the trademark registration process to 18–24 months or more. The new timelines bring Vietnam closer to efficient systems. The fast-track option is particularly smart for high-value or urgent cases such as counterfeit threats on e-commerce platforms. However, careful preparation is mandatory for flawless applications from the start to maximize fast-track eligibility.
Read More