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 7, 2023
The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (the Hague Agreement) officially took effect in Vietnam on December 30, 2019. Since then the Hague Express Database reports that more than 1,300 international design applications have designated Vietnam, and many of them have been examined by Vietnam’s IP Office before a statement of grant of protection was issued. However, from the time the Hague Agreement took effect until the amended Intellectual Property Law took effect on January 1, 2023, there were no legal documents regulating the process and procedures for examining these applications in Vietnam. This caused some difficulties in the examination process and many applications filed from 2020 to date remain in limbo, with the applicants having submitted responses to refusals, but yet to receive further results on the grant or refusal of protection. The amended IP Law introduced Article 93.9 on the validity of international registrations of industrial designs according to the Hague Agreement. More recently, Decree 65/2023/ND-CP (Decree 65) introduced a new section on the filing and processing of Hague international design applications, with detailed regulations on the handling of Hague applications originating in Vietnam and Hague applications designating Vietnam. These new regulations have generally improved the international application process in Vietnam for both the IP Office and design applicants; however, they have not resolved some existing problems and in some cases have created more burdens for applicants. Submission of priority documents Article 24.8 of Decree 65 requires that within three months from the date of the International Bureau’s notification of the Hague Application designating Vietnam, applicants wishing to benefit from a priority must submit documents proving their priority right to the IP Office for approval. This is a completely new requirement that applies to all international design applications designating Vietnam starting from the effective
Read More
December 7, 2023
Myanmar enacted its new Copyright Law on May 24, 2019, to replace the old Copyright Act of 1914. To implement the Copyright Law, the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued the Copyright Rules under Notification No. 70/2023 dated October 23, 2023, establishing procedures for registration of copyright and related rights. Both the new Copyright Law and the Copyright Rules finally came into force on October 31, 2023, in accordance with State Administration Council (SAC) Notification No. 218/2023. Subsequently, the MOC issued Notification No. 73/2023 on November 20, 2023, specifying the official forms for copyright and related rights matters to be filed with Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD). An announcement specifying the government fees under the Copyright Law is still awaited. Once these fees are announced and the IPD opens voluntary registration, the new regime for copyright and related rights in Myanmar is finally expected to be fully functional. Overview The new Copyright Law gives copyright protection for eligible literary and artistic works and for the related rights of performers, phonogram producers, and broadcasting organizations. The law also enables the use of technological protection measures to protect copyright in literary or artistic works or related rights. The unauthorized removal or alteration of digital rights management information is also strictly prohibited. The law supports voluntary registration of copyright in literary and artistic works and related rights with the IPD. In addition, although Myanmar is not yet a contracting party to the Berne Convention (under which countries extend the same copyright protection to nationals and foreigners, regardless of publication in the country), the new Copyright Law extends copyright protection to foreign works created by noncitizens and nonresidents if they are first published in Myanmar or published in Myanmar within 30 days of first publication elsewhere. The Copyright Law grants the following copyright protection
Read More
December 7, 2023
On November 13, 2023, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) of Indonesia’s Ministry of Law and Human Rights held an offline workshop regarding intellectual property (IP).  One of the main discussion topics was the socialization of the proposed amendments to the Industrial Design Law. The proposed amendments to the Industrial Design Law contain a number of important changes, as outlined below. Industrial design definition The definition of an industrial design is clarified and emphasized in the draft law. An object protected through industrial design rights is “the outer appearance of a product,” gives an “aesthetic impression,” can be protected in whole or in part, and may be two- or three-dimensional. Registration system The protection period for industrial designs set by the draft law is 5 years, renewable for up to two additional five-year terms. This differs from the period provided under the current law, which is 10 years from the filing date, nonrenewable. Recordal system The draft law introduces a recordal system particularly for designs that have a relatively short commercial turnaround time, such as textile products. Recorded designs have a protection period of three years from the first publication. The recorded designs can become registered design applications by filing the design through the DGIP’s registration system no later than 12 months from its first publication. Details regarding the recordal system are not yet available. Nonregistrable industrial designs The draft law clarifies that the following are not registrable as industrial designs: Designs that do not give an aesthetic impression; Designs whose features are for purposes of technical functioning only; Folklore or traditional cultural expressions that have not been developed further; Designs contrary to the provisions of laws and regulations, public order, religion, or morality; and Designs filed in bad faith. International design applications The new law introduces a
Read More
November 27, 2023
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the landscape for innovators and creators. As many legal practitioners have pointed out, it’s imperative for both developers of AI and artists using generative AI to understand the intricacies of intellectual property (IP) strategies so they can navigate this evolving terrain successfully. This article lays out some essential considerations relating to the major types of IP for both developers and creators in the realm of generative AI. IP Strategies for Developers of Generative AI Developers of generative AI technologies play a pivotal role in the innovation landscape. There are three overarching IP-related issues to consider: protecting their own intellectual property, mitigating the risk of violating other people’s IP rights, and IP commercialization. Key aspects of these concerns, along with suggested approaches for developers, are outlined below. Protecting IP Copyrights. One of the primary considerations for AI developers is the protection of AI-generated works, such as art and source code. The good news is that in most countries, these creations enjoy copyright protection without the need for registration. As a result, the works are automatically protected from the moment of creation. However, it’s crucial to maintain comprehensive records of your work to establish your ownership. Trademarks. Trademarks are vital for AI developers looking to establish and protect their brand. Pay close attention to Nice classifications, particularly class 9 (for software), class 35 (for business management and online marketing), and class 42 (for software design and development). Registering trademarks in these classes can provide robust protection for your brand and products. Patents. For truly innovative AI algorithms, techniques, or processes, consider the option of patenting. Patents offer strong protection, but they require a thorough application process and the documentation of your innovation, including evidence that the invention is novel, non-obvious, and practically
Read More