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​ 

September 28, 2023
Protecting the aesthetic features of consumer items, such as household appliances, is essential for businesses looking to gain a competitive edge, particularly in the dynamic markets of Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand. Industrial design registrations (or design patents in Thailand) provide an effective means to protect the unique and ornamental designs of products, ensuring that their distinctive appearance is not imitated by competitors. This article provides a general overview of design systems in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand, as well as some key considerations for businesses and rights holders. All three of these countries use an examination system for assessing applications to protect designs. While all three jurisdictions are members of the Paris Convention, only Vietnam has fully completed the process of becoming a member of the Hague Agreement. The table below offers a general comparison of the three countries’ design systems, with additional details provided in the subsequent sections. Vietnam Owners of a household appliance design may seek design rights in Vietnam by filing a national design application at the Vietnam IP Office or by filing an international design application designating Vietnam either directly with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or indirectly through the office of the applicant’s contracting party under the Hague Agreement. Vietnam’s 2022 IP Law redefines “industrial design” as the external appearance of a product or part thereof to be assembled into a complex product, represented by shapes, lines, colors, or a combination thereof, and visible in the process of exploiting the utility of the product or complex product. The two options for obtaining design rights in Vietnam are detailed below. Vietnam National Design Application As Vietnam is a signatory to the Paris Convention, applicants are entitled to a six-month convention priority period from the filing date of the corresponding application in another jurisdiction. Under Vietnam’s
Read More
September 22, 2023
The most familiar and well-protected IP rights are copyrights, patents, and trademarks. However, geographical indications (GIs) are also protected by TRIPS, and are perhaps the most contested rights worldwide. Like a trademark, a GI identifies the origin of goods, but refers to a particular region which yields product qualities that cannot be replicated elsewhere. In practice, most GIs relate to agricultural products, and many originate from Europe, such as the terms Champagne, Mozzarella, and Parmesan. Due to the fundamental relationship between place and product, there have been major arguments that producers outside a specified region are not permitted to use the place name on product labels, no matter how similar their product is to the GI-protected product. A few years ago, a series of European GIs for cheese products were opposed in Vietnam by U.S. producers who considered the terms common names that should not be monopolized under the GI protection scheme. In addition, the overlapping rights between trademarks and GIs and their historically tempestuous relationship add more trauma to lawmakers and IP practitioners. Amid this controversy, Vietnam has joined many international agreements with regard to IP and GI rights, including the TRIPS Agreement, the CPTPP, and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA). Although Vietnam’s IP Law has been amended to reflect these agreements, Vietnamese lawmakers still bear a heavy responsibility in drafting and issuing legislation to further guide the implementation of the amended law, to not only correctly reflect Vietnam’s international commitments, but also to balance the rights of many sides with conflicting interests regarding GIs and trademarks. This legislation includes an upcoming circular regarding industrial property rights (the “draft Circular”). Information Transparency The CPTPP requires GI applications or petitions to be published for opposition, and provides procedures for opposing such GIs. In addition, it requires Vietnam to
Read More
September 4, 2023
With Vietnam’s entertainment industry booming, the demand for music to be used in films and video games has sharply increased. Sometimes a song featured in a movie’s soundtrack can become as popular as the movie itself. In order to use a song in a film, the producer of the film will typically need to enter into an agreement with the owner of a copyrighted work to have permission to use that work – with an agreed amount of royalty. Otherwise, their use could be considered a copyright infringement. However, what happens if the producer enters into an agreement with a song’s purported copyright owner, only to later find that such person does not really own the song entirely? A recent high-profile case in Vietnam brought this issue to light. The Dispute and Court Rulings The film “Face Off 4 – The Walking Guests,” financed and produced by Ly Hai Promotion Co., Ltd (“Ly Hai”) premiered in April 2019, and soon became a big success. In this film, Ly Hai used a song called “Ganh Me” on the basis of a March 2019 contract to use the song signed with the musician Quach Beem, who was recognized as the song owner in a copyright certificate issued on 24 April 2019 by the Copyright Office of Vietnam (COV). The dispute arose in November 2019 when an individual named Truong Minh Nhat discovered that the lyrics of “Ganh Me” were almost identical to a poem he had written and posted on his Facebook page in June 2014, well before the COV had issued the copyright certificate to Quach Beem. Mr. Nhat initiated a lawsuit against two defendants, Quach Beem and Ly Hai, for copyright infringement. In his petition, Mr. Nhat requested the court to, among other things, recognize him as the author
Read More
August 29, 2023
Cambodia recently tightened its trademark procedures by restricting the filing of separate single-class applications for a mark covering multiple classes, and tightening the deadline for filing affidavits of use or non-use. The latter requirement is especially consequential for existing registered trademark owners, as disregarding it could result in removal of the registered mark from Cambodia’s trademark registry. Multiple-Class Applications Cambodia’s Ministry of Commerce announced on August 1, 2023, that the Department of Intellectual Property Rights will now only accept a single application for a trademark covering more than one international class. This means that multiple-class applications are mandatory for applications covering more than one class. Previously, trademark applicants were allowed to file separate single-class applications for the same mark covering multiple classes. The new rule, which took effect immediately, aims to reduce unnecessary paperwork and facilitate the trademark registration process. Period for Filing Affidavits of Use or Non-Use On August 11, 2023, the Ministry of Commerce issued a notification stating that trademark registrants who miss the deadline for filing an affidavit of use or non-use will no longer be allowed to file an affidavit after the deadline or at the time of filing the trademark renewal, as had previously been allowed. This is in line with the Sub-Decree Concerning the Filing of an Affidavit of Use or Non-Use, which requires registered trademark owners to file an affidavit of use or non-use of the trademark within one year following the fifth anniversary of the mark’s registration or renewal. Importantly, the notification announces that registered trademarks will be removed from the registry if the trademark owner fails to file an affidavit of the mark’s use or non-use within the required time period. This announcement applies to both domestic registrations and international registrations made under the Madrid Protocol. Although the notification does
Read More