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

September 5, 2017

Vietnam: A New Dawn for Vietnam Domain Name Disputes?

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

April 21, 2017, was an important milestone in the settlement of IP infringement cases relating to “.vn” domain names in Vietnam. This was the day the domain name <www.bmw.com.vn> was withdrawn by the national domain name management agency, the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center (VNNIC), taking control of the domain away from the registrant by “flicking a switch” at the registry. It marked the first time under recently passed legislation that VNNIC had withdrawn a domain name at the request of the intellectual property infringement settlement agency, the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST).

In this case, the BMW Group, owner of the world-famous BMW trademark and many <bmw> domain names, alleged that <www.bmw.com.vn> had been registered, appropriated, and used in bad faith by a cyber-squatter. The domain name had been registered by the infringing party for 12 years and BMW’s earlier attempts to regain the domain name had been unsuccessful.

VNNIC had withdrawn domain names in IP infringement cases several times in the past; however, controversies arising among the management agencies about the methods and mechanism for domain-name withdrawal had resulted in the suspension of withdrawals for two years. In response to this issue, the management agencies mutually discussed and successfully prepared guiding legislation—specifically, Joint Circular No. 14/2016/TTLT-BTTTT-BKHCN of the Ministry of Information and Communications and MOST dated June 16, 2016, guiding the order and procedures for changing and withdrawing IP-infringing domain names (Circular 14). The <www.bmw.com.vn> case was the first in which Circular 14 was applied, paving the way for its application in similar cases in the future.

This case, which was handled by Tilleke & Gibbins, is not only significant because the domain name was successfully withdrawn, but also because the management agencies had to deal with a range of “legal technicalities” to prevent the case from being suspended due to some unclear aspects of the law. For example, Circular 14 provides that the domain name management agency will withdraw “.vn” domain names only after decisions on administrative sanctions (typically monetary fines) are issued. However, in the <bmw.com.vn> case, the applicable time period for issuance of a decision on administrative sanctions had already expired, and the competent authority—the MOST Inspectorate—had not issued a decision on sanctions. Instead, it issued only a decision on the application of remedial measures to force the infringing party to return the domain name.

The problem is that, normally, the compulsory return of domain names is part of a decision on administrative sanctions to resolve a case, but comes under a separate independent decision of MOST, not a decision within the context of IP infringement “sanctions” in the literal sense of the word. The question in the BMW case was whether such a decision would also be subject to Joint Circular 14 and, therefore, whether VNNIC was compelled to comply with the forced withdrawal. Fortunately, the competent agencies interpreted and applied the law in a reasonable and flexible manner, by considering a decision on the application of remedial measures to be, by nature, a decision on sanctions for the purpose of sanctioning the infringing party, and therefore the domain name <bmw.com.vn> was withdrawn smoothly.

Another hurdle to be overcome in this case was that the MOST Inspectorate’s decision on remedial measures provided a period of 30 days from its issuing date for the infringing party to return the domain name to VNNIC. The MOST Inspectorate could not send a request to VNNIC for compulsory withdrawal until such time period has passed and the domain name had not been returned. The infringing party, however, in an official letter providing its opinions, claimed that it did not know about or receive the decision on remedial measures and, therefore, it objected to the compulsory return. However, after inspecting, verifying and certifying that the decision had been sent to the correct registered address of the infringing party, the infringing party could not deny that it actually received and was aware of the decision.

This case is a practical example of how administrative measures can be applied in Vietnam in handling IP infringements in the registration and use of “.vn” domain names. Hopefully, this will create a good precedent for similar cases in the future. Many cases are also handled with civil actions which are more easily enforced, but may be more costly to the rightsholder.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More