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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More