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​ 

August 3, 2023
Tilleke & Gibbins’ insurance specialists in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand have contributed to the Law and Jurisdiction in Insurance and Reinsurance Contracts – Asia Pacific guide produced by RPC. The guide addresses how governing law, jurisdiction, and arbitration clauses are used in insurance and reinsurance contracts. For each jurisdiction in the Asia Pacific region, the guide addresses the following topics: Governing law; Arbitration; Mediation; and Limitations and time bars on claims. The Law and Jurisdiction in Insurance and Reinsurance Contracts – Asia Pacific guide is available below.
Read More
July 19, 2023
Patent prosecution can be a lengthy process, especially in jurisdictions where patent office backlogs impede the timely examination and grant of patents. Acknowledging the imperative for expeditious patent prosecution, numerous patent holders in Southeast Asian (SEA) nations have expressed their eagerness to expedite the process. Consequently, governments in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam have instituted diverse programs to facilitate swifter patent examination and grant. These programs are implemented either within their own intellectual property systems or through collaboration with other intellectual property offices. Notably, many accelerated examination programs are also available for inventions pertaining to green technologies or matters of public interest. In this article, we will explore a selection of these options, shedding light on the programs that facilitate faster patent examination and grant. While the following sections highlight specific initiatives, it is important to note that there may be other programs and opportunities beyond those mentioned here.   ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation (ASPEC) Program One of the most notable programs in the region, the ASPEC program offers a mechanism for patent applicants to accelerate the examination of their patent applications in a participating IP office of an ASEAN member state (the second IP office) by leveraging the search and examination reports issued by the participating IP office of another ASEAN member state (the first IP office) on the corresponding application. Patent applications filed in any of the participating ASEAN member states, including Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, are eligible to benefit from the ASPEC program. An ASPEC request can be filed at any time before the final decision of grant or refusal; however, to maximize the effectiveness of the program, it is advisable to file the ASPEC request concurrently with the substantive examination request—by doing so, the substantive
Read More
July 18, 2023
On July 14, 2023, Myanmar’s Ministry of Planning and Finance issued Notification No. 50/2023, which sets out the rules, requirements, and procedures for registered trademark owners to protect their intellectual property rights through customs recordation in accordance with the relevant section of the Trademark Law 2019. The notification is accompanied by eight forms to be used in trademark-related customs matters (three for use by applicants and five for use by the Customs Department). Customs Recordation Owners of trademarks registered under the Trademark Law 2019 can apply (directly or via a legal representative) for customs recordation to protect against cross-border trade in counterfeit goods bearing their registered marks. Applications using the specified form should attach the required documentary evidence, including any separately specified by the Customs Department. If the application for recordation is accepted, the Customs Department will provide the applicant with a registration number within 15 days of receiving the application. Recordations are valid for two years from the acceptance date of the application and can be renewed every two years, 30 days before the expiration date. According to the notification, owners of marks recorded by the Customs Department must notify the department within three working days upon amendment or withdrawal of any information related to the mark at the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and submit any necessary documentation. Suspension Order Regardless of whether a customs recordation has been filed, owners of trademarks registered under the Trademark Law 2019 can request a suspension order to prevent the release of goods into free circulation by laying out sufficient grounds for believing that counterfeit goods are being or will be imported into the country. Applications can be in English or Myanmar language, and a translation may be required upon the Customs Department’s request. Applications can be submitted in person, by post,
Read More
July 11, 2023
Can computer programs resolve legal disputes? For decades, the answer from much of the legal community has been no. However, developments in artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular natural language processing and machine learning, have led to renewed discussions of this possibility. Increasingly, tools are being developed to assist parties with litigation outcome prediction and judges with litigation outcome determination. However, while some argue that the use of AI in legal disputes can reduce the length of proceedings, cut costs, and improve access to justice, others raise concerns that “black box” AI systems could reduce transparency, entrench bias, and harm the development of the law. Litigation Outcome Prediction The use of computers to predict the outcome of legal cases is not new. As early as the 1980s, researchers developed outcome prediction tools, often in the form of decision-tree algorithms. However, developments in AI have allowed the creation of more sophisticated prediction models. In 2017, a model built by Katz et al. predicted US Supreme Court decisions with an accuracy of 70.2%, while in 2019, a model built by Medvedeva et al. predicted decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with an accuracy of 75%. In various studies, AI tools have been able to predict case outcomes more accurately than expert lawyers. Companies such as Solomonic and Lex Machina, owned by LexisNexis, now provide commercial litigation prediction and analytics tools. Outcome prediction tools can be used by parties and their legal representatives to craft arguments and facilitate settlement negotiations, or by third-party litigation financers to assess the risk of providing funding. More broadly, outcome prediction may be used by the likes of insurance companies to help calculate claim payouts. However, those using such tools must take care to ensure that they do not breach any professional or legal obligations.
Read More