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​ 

January 29, 2026
Following the recent enactment of a comprehensive legal framework addressing sexual harassment, Thailand has launched a fast-track judicial process enabling victims of online sexual harassment to obtain court orders suspending and removing obscene content from the internet. On January 26, 2026, the Office of the Judiciary introduced the “Take It Down” procedure through the Court Integral Online Service (CIOS) platform, providing victims with their first direct, expedited pathway to halt the spread of online content that violates the new legal provisions against sexual harassment. This new remedy stems from section 284/4 of the Penal Code, introduced through the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 30) B.E. 2568, which took effect on December 30, 2025. Under section 284/4, an injured person or a competent official may petition the court to suspend dissemination of violating data and remove the data from computer systems within a court-specified period. The court may also direct system controllers, service providers, or competent authorities to carry out the order and report back within 15 days. Filing through the CIOS Platform The CIOS platform serves as the primary electronic channel for these petitions. Key features include: Individuals can file online without appearing in person and may submit petitions at any time the system is available. Users must complete digital identity verification via the ThaID application to access the CIOS. Petitions under section 284/4 are limited to requests to suspend or remove violating content. Claims for monetary damages must be pursued separately, including via separate proceedings or prefiling mediation. Streamlined Review Process The submission workflow is end-to-end electronic, and the system provides step-by-step guidance. After submission, court staff review the petition before presenting it to a judge for consideration. The court may conduct an online inquiry to obtain additional information, and in-person attendance is required only if deemed
Read More
January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More