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​ 

December 4, 2024
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to Restructuring in Southeast Asia, a comparative guide produced by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The publication outlines the principal debt restructuring processes available to corporate debtors across nine Southeast Asian jurisdictions and provides an accessible overview for lenders, creditors, and companies navigating financial distress in the region. Structured in a question-and-answer format, each jurisdictional chapter addresses the same core topics, allowing readers to compare approaches across markets. The guide covers key issues such as available restructuring mechanisms, court-supervised and out-of-court options, the roles and powers of creditors, and the implications of restructuring on ongoing business operations. As with other DNA resources, the guide aims to provide practical orientation rather than exhaustive analysis. Legislative developments and jurisdiction-specific considerations may affect the applicability of certain procedures, and readers requiring tailored advice are encouraged to contact the practitioners listed at the end of each chapter. The full guide is available for download using the button below or directly from the DNA website.
Read More
December 4, 2024
On October 28, 2024, Indonesia officially amended its existing Patent Law when the president ratified Law Number 65 of 2024. This comprehensive update—the third such amendment in the history of Indonesia’s Patent Law—introduces several key changes that will significantly impact patent protection and application processes in Indonesia. Key highlights and changes are outlined below. Definition of Invention The new law broadens the definition of “invention” to explicitly include systems, methods, and uses. Additionally, the law introduces formal definitions for traditional knowledge and genetic resources. Patentability Criteria Notable changes include: Computer programs are now excluded, with an exception for computer-implemented inventions. Theories and methods in science and mathematics are added to the list of excluded inventions. Previous restrictions on new uses of existing products are removed. Grace Periods The grace periods for some patent-related actions have been adjusted: The grace period for disclosures has been extended to 12 months (from 6 months previously), providing inventors with more flexibility in filing patent applications after initial disclosure. A newly introduced item is the grace period for a conventional patent application claiming priority rights, which is 4 months after the 12-month filing deadline under the Paris Convention. The grace period for annuity payments is 6 months (from 12 months previously) with a fine for late payments of 100% of the annual fee payable. Patent Holder Rights and Obligations Patent holders can now grant permissions to enforce patents. There is a new requirement for patent holders to submit annual statements on patent implementation in Indonesia. Compulsory Licensing Significant changes to compulsory licensing include: Establishment of licenses based on the principle of expediency. Limitations on license scope and transferability. Prioritization of domestic market needs. New provisions for technical improvements and economic significance. Government Patent Exploitation The new law contains specific provisions for the government’s implementation
Read More
December 4, 2024
Thailand Legal Basics, a valuable primer for foreign investors, explores all aspects of living and doing business in Thailand. Written by specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok, it is the only comprehensive English-language guide to the Thai legal system with a focus on the concerns of foreign business and investment.
Read More
November 27, 2024
In Thailand, a business rehabilitation plan in court-supervised rehabilitation proceedings is a crucial element of the business rehabilitation process that outlines how a debtor’s assets will be managed. It also provides guidance for resolving a debtor’s business challenges so that the business can survive and continue to generate returns, increasing the likelihood that its creditors will be repaid. Key Plan Components The Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 sets forth the following components to be covered in a rehabilitation plan: The reasons for rehabilitation; Details about the debtor’s assets, liabilities, and other binding obligations at the time the court-ordered rehabilitation; Principles and methods of the rehabilitation; Redemption of collateral when there are secured creditors and guarantor liabilities; Ways to resolve problems arising from a temporary lack of liquidity during plan implementation; Action to be taken when a claim or debt is assigned; Name, qualifications, and letter of consent of the plan administrator, as well as information on compensation; Appointment and release of the plan administrator; Period in which the plan will be implemented (maximum of five years); and Refusal of the debtor’s assets or refusal of contractual rights if the debtor’s assets or contractual rights have obligations that exceed the benefits they yield. Considering the diverse nature and challenges of each debtor’s business, the details listed here are only general guidelines for what should be included in a rehabilitation plan. The planner has the flexibility to create a plan with different details or guidelines than those outlined above to best suit the nature and challenges of the debtor’s business. The planner can also omit some of the mentioned requirements if they are not relevant to the debtor’s business. Concerns of Relevance Court approval of the rehabilitation plan. Once the plan is approved by a meeting of the creditors, it is necessary
Read More