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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More