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

August 2, 2014

Landmark Win in Lafarge Domain Name Dispute

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On April 22, the People’s Court of the city of Da Nang issued a decision ordering the revocation of the “lafarge.com.vn” domain name registered by a Vietnamese individual, giving Lafarge S.A. of France a 10-day “sunrise” period to register the domain name itself. This brought to a conclusion a five-year battle over cybersquatting and set a precedent for domain name cases in Vietnam. In a report on the settlement, Vietnam’s national domain-name administration agency VNNIC stated, “This is the most prominent court settlement of a domain name dispute so far, and can be seen as a model for judicial bodies to apply for the settlement of disputes going forward.” Tilleke & Gibbins advised Lafarge on the case.

Case Background

France’s Lafarge SA, founded in 1833, is a world leader in building materials, specializing in cement, concrete, and aggregates. The company’s “LAFARGE” trademark has been protected in Vietnam since 1974, while its LAFARGE and Device trademark has been protected in Vietnam since 1995.

In 2009, Lafarge discovered that the Vietnamese domain name www.lafarge.com.vn had been registered by Pham Thi Ngoc Han, a woman from Da Nang. Concerned about the cyber-squatting, in February 2010, Lafarge sent a cease-and-desist letter to the registrant, seeking a voluntary return of the domain name to Lafarge. In reply to the letter, Ms. Han brazenly demanded USD 1,200,000 for the return of the domain name.

Concluding that the registrant had no legitimate interest in amicably resolving the case, Lafarge decided to proceed with legal actions to retrieve the disputed domain name. However, no authorities could help Lafarge to resolve the dispute. The Market Control Department of Da Nang could not handle the case although they interrogated the cyber-squatter. The Inspectorate of the Ministry of Information and Communications denied the administrative actions set forth under Decree 97/2010/ND-CP and declined to deal with the case by administrative route. The Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology, though they acknowledged the administrative action under Decree 97/2010/ND-CP, stayed the proceedings due to a lack of legal documents guiding the Decree. The Department of Science and Technology of Da Nang turned down the case as they could not summon the cyber-squatter.

When no administrative bodies accepted the dispute, Lafarge had to fall back on the court. On March 25, 2013, Lafarge brought a lawsuit against the cyber-squatter to recover the domain name, understanding that the defendant would likely be untraceable, having possibly fled to another country as she was being hunted for a criminal offense. Therefore, the plaintiff relied on various regulations to request the court to officially search for the defendant. The search of the court would pave the way for an ex parte resolution of the dispute.

When the timeframe for the search expired, the defendant still had not appeared. Accordingly, on April 22, 2014, the court opened an ex parte hearing to conclude the case. In the hearing, the court ordered a revocation of the domain name and gave Lafarge a sunrise period of 10 days to register the domain name after the revocation.

Significance of the Victory

The suit is the first ex parte IP case that the local Vietnamese courts have ever dealt with, setting a precedent for all future cases in which the parties cannot trace down the defendant. In light of Lafarge’s successful approach to achieving an ex parte hearing, other IPR holders need only follow suit to seek such a hearing for not only domain name dispute cases but also for other IP cases.

The case is the second domain name dispute case ever handled by the local courts, with the first being a dispute over the domain names “samsungmoible.vn” and “samsungmobile.com.vn” in 2011. The suit marks a positive development in applying the laws to resolve domain name disputes by the competent authorities. Currently, there are two parallel systems for resolution of domain name disputes, namely, a system set forth under the Law on Information and Technology and its subordinate documents and a system provided under the Law on Intellectual Property. In the Samsung case, the court relied mainly on the Law on Information and Technology to resolve the dispute. In the Lafarge case, the court seems to have also relied on the IP system.

Subordinate agencies under the Ministry of Information and Communication such as the Inspectorates of the Ministry often have refused to acknowledge the system under the IP Law. VNNIC, a subordinate agency under the Ministry in charge of withdrawing disputed domain names upon the request/order of competent authorities, had in fact usually disregarded the system under the IP Law and had declined to withdraw disputed domain names as instructed by the competent authorities attempting to resolve the disputes based on the IP system. In the Lafarge case, VNNIC dropped its objections and withdrew the domain name www.lafarge.com.vn after receiving the court’s judgment.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More