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​ 

July 2, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) released a new version of the draft Act on Artificial Intelligence on July 2, 2026, for a public hearing period expected to be approximately 30 days. The draft act adopts a risk-based regulatory approach modeled in part on international frameworks—particularly the EU’s AI Act—while incorporating provisions tailored to Thailand’s regulatory landscape and digital economy objectives. If enacted in its current form, the law would introduce extraterritorial obligations, a tiered risk classification system, strict liability for AI-related damages, and new transparency requirements for AI-generated content. Scope and Extraterritorial Application The draft act applies to AI development, deployment, or any other action affecting people in Thailand, even if the action occurs outside the country. Of note: This extraterritorial reach creates compliance obligations for global AI companies whose systems impact Thai residents or consumers, even if the provider has no physical presence in Thailand. Foreign AI providers serving Thai deployers or users must appoint a local coordinator or authorized representative. Depending on the type of AI system, the representative may need full authority to act on behalf of the provider without any limitation of liability. Certain activities are exempt from the draft act’s oversight, including AI used by natural persons solely for personal or household activities, AI for educational research conducted by higher education institutions with ethics committee approval, research and development activities conducted prior to distribution or service provision, and other AI systems prescribed by royal decree. Risk-Based Classification Framework The draft act establishes a tiered risk classification system with three main categories: Prohibited AI. The act outright prohibits AI systems employing cognitive-behavioral manipulation using subliminal techniques, AI systems causing unfair broad-scale discrimination from processing irrelevant data, and other categories of serious risk as determined by announcement of a forthcoming committee that will be responsible
Read More
June 25, 2026
On June 18, 2026, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published two notifications in the Government Gazette establishing Thailand’s first formal certification framework for personal data protection standards under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notifications, which took immediate effect, introduce a voluntary certification framework aimed at promoting accountability, strengthening organizational data protection governance, and aligning Thailand more closely with international frameworks that recognize certification as a key compliance tool. Certification Criteria The first notification sets out the assessment criteria for organizations seeking certification. Applicants must undergo an evaluation against a framework comprising four assessment categories, 10 focus areas, and 128 assessment criteria covering key elements of a privacy management program. These include: Organizational oversight and internal policies and procedures. Human resource development, including staff training and awareness programs. Clearly defined operational processes and procedures covering data subject rights, transparency obligations, records of processing activities, and lawful basis management, as well as contractual safeguards such as data-processing and data-sharing agreements and risk assessments, including Data Protection Impact Assessments. Technical measures encompassing data security controls and breach response capabilities Based on the assessment results, organizations may be awarded either a PDPA Compliance Certificate or a higher-level PDPA Certificate accompanied by a certification mark. Application and Assessment Process The second notification establishes the application and assessment process for obtaining certification. Eligible applicants include government agencies and private-sector entities that demonstrate sufficient privacy governance maturity and meet the prescribed eligibility requirements. Applicants must submit their applications along with supporting documentation for review. Upon receiving an application, the Office of the PDPC will conduct a detailed evaluation, which may include both documentary review and on-site inspections. Incomplete applications may be rejected, though applicants are typically given a limited period to correct deficiencies before a final decision
Read More
June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
Read More
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