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 8, 2023
Arbitration specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution team in Bangkok contributed the Thailand chapter to the recently published Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards Guide from Global Arbitration Review (GAR). The Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards Guide addresses the evolving realities of today’s legal landscape, in which enforcement of arbitral awards is a growing concern. It also offers guidance on challenging awards in different jurisdictions. Part I of the guide offers a comprehensive thematic overview to provide readers with a clear understanding of the intricacies involved in the arbitration process. Part II then explores the specifics of challenging and enforcing arbitration awards in 29 different jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter—which was authored by counsel Michael Ramirez, partner Noppramart Thammateeradaycho, and associate Anyamani Yimsaard—covers the following topics: Requirements for the form of arbitral awards; Recourse against an award; Setting aside; Recognition and enforcement of awards; Procedure for service of judicial and extrajudicial documents; Identification of assets; Enforcement proceedings; Interim measures; Attachment proceedings; and Recognition and enforcement against foreign states. The Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, or visit the GAR website to explore the full guide.
Read More
June 2, 2023
Efficiency and predictability in the global supply chain are critical for business operations. Whether involved in manufacturing, distribution, logistics, or even in the provision of services, most business operators rely upon problem-free customs clearance in the countries in which they operate. If customs disputes do arise and are not effectively addressed, they can have a profound impact on operations, delaying delivery, creating potential civil and criminal liabilities, or even resulting in the seizure of imported goods. Often, importers or their agents can become complacent, particularly where there has been a period of months or even years of customs clearance without encountering any issues. However, disputes can arise, often relating to origin of goods, classification, and duty assessment. When not addressed early in the dispute process or through settlement, a dispute can escalate, leading to issuance of official letters of assessment by customs authorities. Once Thai customs has issued such a formal letter of assessment to an importer, discretion in settlement is gone and only the full value of the duty assessment can be accepted. At this stage, the only legal avenue for challenge is to accept the duty assessment or to litigate. This article addresses post-assessment litigation options to challenge official customs duty assessments. Customs Board of Appeals Once an official assessment is made, an importer has the right to seek a formal appeal of the customs assessment with the Customs Board of Appeals or to otherwise make payment of the full assessment within 30 days of the date it received the assessment. Extensions of time are not permitted. With few exceptions, the right to appeal does not allow the importer to defer an assessed duty payment. This means that the importer must post security for the assessed duty at the time of filing the appeal. This essentially means
Read More
May 23, 2023
Life sciences specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Bangkok have contributed a new “Life Sciences Commercialization in Thailand” chapter to the Life Sciences Global Guide from Practical Law. The Q&A-style guide provides strategic information for companies active in the life sciences sector in Thailand. The chapter covers a number of key areas: Overview of the life sciences sector Pricing, government funding, and reimbursement: National health care system, price regulation and reimbursement Distribution and sale Cross-border trade and parallel imports Advertising and engagement with patient organizations Patents: Conditions for patentability, registration, length of protection, infringement, international treaties Trademarks: Requirements, registration Competition law issues: Authorities and legislation, commercial contracts and competition law, licensing approvals and formalities Product liability: Regulators, medicinal product liability law, liable partners, defenses, product liability claims, remedies Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The full “Life Sciences Commercialization in Thailand” section can be found on the Practical Law website.
Read More
May 19, 2023
On May 16, 2023, Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) announced an extension of one more month for submission of notarized appointment of representative forms (or “TM-2 forms”) and for payment of official filing fees for trademarks. The new deadline for payment and submission is June 30, 2023. The IPD had announced in April 2023 that fee payments and submission of notarized TM-2 forms for trademarks prior to the enforcement of the Trademark Law (i.e., from October 1, 2020, to April 2, 2023) had to be completed by May 31, 2023. However, technical issues have hindered the IPD’s online filing system, which has had to undergo maintenance procedures. The extension until June 30, 2023, gives mark owners more time to prepare the necessary notarized TM-2 forms for their mark applications filed prior to enforcement of the Trademark Law . For more information on the country’s new trademark system, or on any aspect of protecting intellectual property rights in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More