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 1, 2024
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Bangkok have contributed the Thailand chapter to the newly issued Labor and Employment Disputes 2024, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to labor and employment dispute resolution in various jurisdictions around the world. The Thailand chapter covers the following topics: Pre-action considerations: Key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: Forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service Defendants and legal personality: Types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: Procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties to proceedings, consolidating proceedings Class and collective actions: Special considerations Evidence: Witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: Availability, requirements Trial: Hearings conduct and typical time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting Elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: Available types, requirements and expectations Enforcement: Collective employment and labor rights, enforcement of collective rights, standing Remedies and enforcement: Available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: Appeal procedure and time frames, other means of challenge Update and trends: Recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The Thailand chapter was authored by Eric M. Meyer, Chusert Supasitthumrong, Pathanin Sornchangwat, and Chayathorn Kruatao, all in the Thailand dispute resolution and litigation team. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2024. The full Thailand chapter is available below as a PDF.
Read More
October 1, 2024
Background Since Thailand’s accession to the Madrid Protocol in November 2017, the trademark registration landscape in the country has undergone significant transformation. Brand owners can seek trademark protection in Thailand through a streamlined international process in addition to the national route. This alignment with global practices has somewhat simplified the registration process, offering businesses a valuable pathway to safeguard their brands in this key Southeast Asian market. However, despite the streamlined process, a technical glitch at the Trademark Office in Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property has caused delays in issuing local certificates and statements of grant following provisional refusals — commonly referred to as ‘Model Form 5’. These documents are crucial for finalising trademark registrations and confirming their validity within Thailand. It is important to note, however, that this technical issue did not affect the issuance of statements of grant for international registrations (IRs) that had not been provisionally refused. Recent developments The good news is that, as of 19 August 2024, the Trademark Office has successfully resolved the technical issues impacting the issuance of these essential documents. With the glitch now fixed, the office has begun to process the backlog of local certificates of registration and statements of grant for IRs designating Thailand following provisional refusals. What this means for brand owners The resolution of this technical issue represents a significant milestone for brand owners who have been waiting for their local certificates. As the Trademark Office works to clear the backlog, the issuance of certificates and statements of grant is likely to proceed more promptly. For those affected by the delay, the end is in sight. The issuance of these documents will enable brand owners to officially complete their trademark registration in Thailand and benefit from the protections offered under Thai law. In the meantime, brand owners
Read More
September 26, 2024
Indonesia enacted a new franchise regulation, Government Regulation No. 35 of 2024 on Franchising (“GR 35/2024”), on September 2, 2024. Franchising in Indonesia was previously governed by Government Regulation No. 42 of 2007 on Franchising (“GR 42/2007”), along with an implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 71 of 2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising (“MOT Regulation 71/2019”). This new regulation repeals GR 42/2007. However, MOT Regulation No. 71/2019 remains in effect until a new MOT regulation can be enacted. The new franchise regulation contains several amendments and provides more detailed requirements to complement MOT Regulation No. 71/2019. Comparison of GR 35/2024 to GR 42/2007 Minimum years of business operation. The new regulation reduces the minimum duration that a franchise registration applicant must have been operating from five years to three years. Intellectual property (IP) status. Any relevant IP must now be registered before a franchise registration application can be submitted. This is a change from the previous regulations, under which it was possible to obtain a franchise registration (STPW) while an IP application was still pending, and if the IP application could not be registered, the STPW would be canceled. Registration requirements for foreign franchisors. Under the new regulation, foreign franchisors must provide a legalized or apostilled business permit document from the country of origin in addition to the previously required franchise offering prospectus and statement letter from the relevant Indonesian authority. Administrative sanctions. The new regulation has adjusted the three escalating stages of administrative sanctions to (1) two warning letters, (2) a 14-day suspension from business activities, and (3) STPW revocation. This varies from the three stages under the previous regulation (three warning letters, fine, and STPW revocation). The new regulation also expands the list of noncompliant actions that are subject to these administrative sanctions. In addition to
Read More
September 23, 2024
The General Department of Customs and Excise (GDCE) in Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance launched a trial phase of its Intellectual Property Rights Recordation System (IPRRS) on September 1, 2024. The system compiles necessary information and documents related to intellectual property rights in the country, enabling customs authorities to swiftly access these documents and enhance their ability to identify and intercept potential parallel imports and infringing goods at the border. This will also better facilitate ex-officio actions by customs authorities. The system is currently referred to as being in a “trial phase” to support further amendments or updates to address any potential technical errors that may arise from public use. However, the IPRRS is already fully operational. Types of Recordation Currently, the IPRRS allows two types of recordation: Intellectual property recordation is available for trademarks, geographical indications, copyrights, and related rights that are protected in Cambodia. It allows IP owners, authorized representatives, and legal representatives to record information and documents relating to such rights, including information on possible or potential counterfeit goods, with the GDCE. Recordation will give customs authorities quicker access to the information and enable them to promptly take action against potential counterfeit or infringing goods. Exclusive distributorship recordation is meant to streamline the process that takes place after the Ministry of Commerce issues a notice of the recordation of exclusive rights. Under the current practice, after receiving a copy of a notice of the recordal of an exclusive distributorship issued by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), the GDCE needs to enter the information into their system manually to enable them to promptly identify or stop potential parallel importation at the border. This reportedly causes delays in border officers’ access to the necessary information. Recordation through the IPRRS, on the other hand, allows local exclusive distributors
Read More