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​ 

July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More