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​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More