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

December 2, 2014

A Turning Point in Domain Name Disputes?

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

October 3 witnessed an event of significant legal import in Vietnam that attracted the attention of many practitioners in the IP field, and especially those concerned with methods of resolving .vn domain name cases via administrative measures. This notable event was the forced revocation of the domain name Amway2u.vn by VNNIC, the state body administering domain names in Vietnam, after its initial resistance to do so. It was a groundbreaking success in application of coercive administrative measures in domain name disputes in Vietnam.

Obstacles in Enforcing Decisions via Administrative Measures

Vietnam is one of the fastest growing countries in Asia in terms of Internet usage, with the domain name field expanding in a corresponding fashion. The growth in the domain name area has, of course, also led to growth in domain name disputes.

In the case in question, Alticor, the parent company of Amway, and a world leader in direct selling in the home, beauty and healthcare markets, found itself face to face with a Vietnamese citizen who had registered, appropriated and used the domain name Amway2u.vn since 2011. Alticor is the legitimate owner of the trade mark Amway and device protected in

Vietnam and also does business through its official website with the name Amway2u.com.vn.

The primary challenge in this case came not from determining whether the registration, appropriation and use of the domain name Amway2u.vn—similar to the protected Amway and device trade mark of Alticor—was a violation of Vietnamese law. This was an obvious case of cybersquatting, given the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith by the registrant. Rather, the difficulty arose in determining how the dispute resolution decision issued by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) would be executed by the Vietnam domain name management agency VNNIC, and the domain name registrar under the direction of this agency.

Will Amway2u.vn Be a Turning Point?

Before the Amway2u.vn case, a number of similar domain name disputes had been resolved via administrative measures set forth in Decree Number 99/2013 and the earlier Decree Number 97/2010 (government-issued legislation guiding the sanctioning of administrative violations in industrial property). In many of the cases which had been resolved, the competent authority (the

MOST Inspectorate) issued decisions mandating fines and the compulsory application of domain name revocation as a remedy measure. However, the revocation of domain names, from both a technical and legal perspective, was entirely the responsibility of a different agency, VNNIC, and VNNIC continually refused to carry out the revocation, arguing that there were no methods of domain name dispute resolution via administrative measures; such domain name dispute resolution was instead to be carried out in the form of court proceedings, mediation or arbitration as stipulated in Article 76 of the Law on Information Technology. This law, in fact, was drafted by the supervisory body of VNNIC—the Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC).

Unwilling to accept VNNIC’s approach, Alticor lodged a complaint with the Minister of Information and Communication about VNNIC’s failure to carry out the revocation of the domain name Amway2u.vn. The appeal triggered several inter-ministerial meetings as well as the involvement of the office of government on behalf of the prime minister. In these meetings, MIC and VNNIC came under fire for not abiding by Decree 99/2013. In the end, VNNIC and the MIC had to acknowledge the legitimacy of the domain name dispute resolution mechanism by administrative measures in addition to the mechanisms stipulated in the Law on Information Technology. They proceeded to revoke the domain name Amway2u.vn as requested, while giving Alticor a five-day sunrise period after the revocation with priority to register the domain name itself.

The successful retrieval of the disputed domain name in this case effectively removed the bottleneck in enforcing the rulings of administrative bodies such as MOST. Following the success of the case, it is hoped that VNNIC will adhere to this practice in the future, carrying out administrative actions to deal with domain name disputes and cancelling disputed domain names upon request.

The resolution process in the Amway2u.vn case forced the functional agencies to tackle head-on, without further delay, the issue of building a coordination mechanism between them, to avoid similar situations in the future where owners are ready to appeal or sue to request enforcement of a valid legal decision. This case also shows that the era of subordinate agencies blindly obeying their superiors has passed, and an era of respecting the law may be arriving. Tilleke & Gibbins advised Alticor in this case.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More