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​ 

March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
Read More
March 6, 2026
Myanmar’s Trademark Law 2019 introduced a modern framework for the registration, enforcement, and protection of trademarks. However, due to the high volume of applications filed during the soft-opening period of the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), marks submitted from 2022 onward remain pending as the IPD works its way through the applications filed in 2021, which it has been publishing on a monthly basis since May 1, 2024. During this period, businesses should adopt proactive strategies to protect their brands, monitor conflicting marks, and ensure a smooth registration process. Practical Steps for Safeguarding Pending Marks While a pending application does not confer full trademark rights, brand owners can take several practical steps to strengthen their position: Monitor IPD publications. Businesses should regularly review the IPD’s monthly gazette to identify any identical or confusingly similar marks at an early stage and prepare timely oppositions in accordance with the Trademark Law’s provisions allowing “any interested party” to file an objection to a trademark application. Monitor market activity. Early detection of potential infringement enables swift action, such as cease-and-desist letters and opposition proceedings. Businesses should monitor competitors, distributors, and retailers for unauthorized use of their marks. Collect evidence of use. Maintaining evidence of use strengthens claims of distinctiveness and supports enforcement efforts. Businesses should keep records of commercial activities, distribution, brand promotion and development, marketing communications, product packaging and labeling, and sales demonstrating brand recognition in Myanmar and internationally, particularly in Southeast Asian markets. Although the Trademark Law 2019 establishes a first-to-file system, evidence of use provides considerable practical support for distinctiveness claims and enforcement actions. Pursue Interim Enforcement Options. A pending trademark application can be relied upon to oppose or refuse other marks on absolute and/or relative grounds of refusal. In addition, marks with established reputations may be protected under passing-off principles
Read More
March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
February 27, 2026
On January 26, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance issued Circular No. 06/2026/TT-BTC (Circular 06), amending and supplementing Circular No. 13/2015/TT-BTC, which provides guidance on dossiers and procedures for customs recordal and customs supervision in relation to intellectual property rights (IPR). Circular 06 has an effective date of March 1, 2026. Some notable points of Circular 06 include the following: Simplified Documentation for Customs Recordal Applications Circular 06 reduces some documentary requirements for IPR owners: A power of attorney is no longer required to be legalized. Applicants are no longer required to submit title or registration certificates if such documents are issued in digital form. In such cases, it is sufficient to declare comprehensive information on the relevant IPR, enabling customs authorities to verify the information through publicly accessible databases. In practice, this amendment is particularly beneficial for international trademark registrations designating Vietnam. IPR owners may no longer need to obtain a confirmation letter from the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam regarding the validity of a trademark registration in Vietnam. Instead, they may rely on registration status information available from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) database, reflecting that the international registration has been granted protection in Vietnam. Clearer Mechanism for Ex Officio Suspension of Suspected Infringing Goods Although ex officio suspension has been referenced in earlier regulations, Circular 06 provides clearer guidance on the circumstances and procedures under which customs may proactively suspend customs procedures for consignments suspected of being counterfeit or pirated goods. Accordingly, customs authorities may initiate the suspension of clearance without waiting for a formal request from IPR owners. Enhanced Supervision of Imported/Exported Goods in E-Commerce Circular 06 also supplements provisions on the inspection of imported and exported goods transacted through e-commerce channels. Customs authorities may apply risk management measures to assess goods traded via e-commerce
Read More