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​ 

May 15, 2023
Southeast Asia’s remarkable growth as a destination for foreign investment—including a 42 percent increase in 2021, according to a joint ASEAN-UNCTAD report—has brought with it innovation as well as the desire to protect that innovation. Investors are increasingly seeking to patent the proprietary technology that is a crucial component of so many businesses today, and a burning question for patent applicants is whether artificial intelligence (AI) technology and software are patentable in Southeast Asia. The short answer is that it depends, as the patent laws in Southeast Asia are not uniform. Is it Patentable? While AI tools tend to be newer, the older and more familiar question is whether computer software is patentable, and many jurisdictions do have specific rules on this issue. Pure software, or software characterized only by source code, may not be patentable, but it can be protected under copyright laws. AI-related software may involve complex algorithms, datasets, and training methodologies that can be challenging to disclose in a manner that satisfies the enablement requirement in practice. Algorithms, mathematical methods, and abstract ideas are often considered non-patentable subject matter in many jurisdictions. While software implementing AI may involve innovative algorithms, securing patents for algorithms alone can be challenging in some jurisdictions. Also, the patent laws of Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam specifically list computer programs as unpatentable subject matter. However, a possible workaround would be to describe the software as connected to a tangible medium. This method could overcome an unpatentable subject matter rejection during substantive examination. Furthermore, in Indonesia, a computer program can be patentable if its characteristics (i.e., instructions) have a technical effect and function to solve a tangible or intangible problem. The most liberal of Southeast Asia’s patent regimes—Singapore’s—even addresses AI innovations. The country has a special fast-track scheme for examining AI patent
Read More
May 9, 2023
On April 26, 2023, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP detailing some articles and enforcement measures of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law with respect to copyright and related rights (Decree 17). Decree 17 took immediate effect upon issuance, and provides long-awaited, necessary guidance for implementation of the IP Law, which took effect on January 1, 2023. The official regulations set out significantly new requirements on copyright and related rights in comparison to the draft version of the decree circulated in 2022. Some of the most critical provisions include the following: Detailed Definitions of Terms Decree 17 provides detailed definitions of copyrightable subject-matters, including “literary and scientific works, textbooks, curricula, and other written works”; “lectures, speeches, and other talks”; “journalistic works”; “musical works”; “cinematographic works”; and others. Exceptions to Copyright Infringement Section 1 of Chapter III sets out the exceptions to copyright infringement, including, among others: Reasonable reproduction of part of a work using a copying device for scientific research, personal study, or non-commercial purposes. Using a work in official activities of state agencies. Using reasonable extracts/excerpts of a work. Using a work in library activities for non-commercial purposes Reasonable reproduction of part of a performance, audio recording, video recording, or broadcast. Enforcement Against Infringements The entire Chapter VI covers the protection of copyright and related rights to a very detailed extent, including: Presumption of copyright and related rights; Technological measures to protect rights; and The basis for determination of subjects entitled to copyright and related rights protection. The mechanisms to determine infringements and damages are clearly provided, including: Grounds for determining the nature and extent of infringement; Principles for the determination of damages; and The definition and calculation of mental loss, property damage, decline in income and profit, and loss of business opportunities. Decree 17 also adds a
Read More
May 8, 2023
When a company promotes its products or services, it will naturally use laudatory terms or phrases to describe their quality. However, in Vietnam, such use could constitute trademark infringement, as many terms with a descriptive or laudatory nature have been granted registration as trademarks, often without disclaimers. Examples include “Nuoc Mam Me Lam” (“Fish sauce made by mom”) under Reg. No. 392575 for fish sauce, “Drink it, Wear it” under Reg. No. 387444 for clothing retail services, and “Making Cancer History” under Reg. No. 388177 for healthcare services. Imagine a case where a hospital advertises that its cancer treatment services can help “make cancer history.” Would such advertisement be considered trademark infringement of the registered mark “Making Cancer History”? Fair use or infringement? Under the doctrine of descriptive fair use commonly adopted worldwide, a third party, even a direct competitor, may use another party’s descriptive trademark to describe its own products or services, even if such mark has acquired secondary meaning. However, that use can only be in a purely descriptive manner. Descriptive fair use requires that the mark being used actually describes a quality or attribute of the goods or services, rather than indicating the source. The descriptive words must also be used in the normal course of language. In addition, the mark must be used in the text portions of an advertisement and not as a banner or in any other manner that sets it apart from the other words in the sentence or paragraph in which it is used. To be nominative fair use, such use should accurately refer to a trademark owner or to goods or services and cannot be misleading or defamatory, or imply endorsement or sponsorship by a trademark owner. Vietnam does not have any detailed regulation on fair use of descriptive marks.
Read More
May 8, 2023
Myanmar’s long-awaited first-to-file trademark registration system came into full effect on April 26, 2023, with the “grand opening” of the country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD). This followed the issuance of the Trademark Rules and other related notifications at the beginning of April, in conjunction with the Trademark Law coming into force. Full enforcement of this law is a milestone in Myanmar’s long quest to establish a functioning, modern framework for trademarks in particular and for IP in general. The Trademark Law was passed in 2019 as part of suite of laws meant to modernize the country’s treatment of IP rights. Previously, IP rights holders in Myanmar relied on outdated systems based largely on laws from the colonial period under British rule. For example, brand owners could achieve some measure of protection through establishing use in the country and recording their marks with the Office of Registration of Deeds (ORD). However, these protections were limited and did not provide the same level of security and legal recourse as a comprehensive trademark registration system. Without a proper system in place, businesses were vulnerable to infringement and counterfeiting, which could be detrimental to their reputation and bottom line. The new Trademark Law will provide much-needed protection to brand owners and encourage innovation and investment in Myanmar, bringing the country in line with other Southeast Asian nations that have already implemented modern IP laws and systems, such as Thailand and Vietnam. Features of the Trademark Law In addition to the increased protection and streamlined filing procedures, the Trademark Law offers a range of other salient features: Administration: The core government ministry administering the new Trademark Law is the Ministry of Commerce. Four other ministries—the Ministry of Information; the Ministry of Industry; the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation; and the Ministry of Education—are
Read More