Assessing the impact of Vietnam’s new internet decree on domain name disputes

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Assessing the impact of Vietnam’s new internet decree on domain name disputes

Sponsored by

tillekegibbins.png
Internet domain names

Linh Duy Mai and Giang Hoang Bach of T&G Law Firm LLC (TGVN), the local associate firm of Tilleke & Gibbins, explain why Decree 147 is to be welcomed, although a key issue is unresolved

On November 9 2024, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (Decree 147), which will take effect on December 25 2024 and replaces the outdated, 11-year-old Decree 72 on the same topic. Decree 147 will serve as the principal legislation governing a wide range of internet services, including online games, app stores, and social networks.

For intellectual property practitioners, a subject of particular interest under Decree 147 is the updated regulations on the resolution of domain name disputes, particularly when cybersquatters register domain names that integrate the trademarks or trade names of other entities. The main changes, as summarised below, aim to bring clarity to the legal framework and harmonise Vietnam’s laws on intellectual property and information technology.

Removal of prescriptive actions

Decree 72 had outlined three specific methods for resolving domain name disputes – negotiation/mediation, arbitration, and court – with the implication that this was a closed list of permissible methods. This approach was arguably in conflict with the Intellectual Property Law, which additionally allows administrative action.

Decree 147 no longer lists any specific actions, implying an acceptance of administrative action as provided in the Intellectual Property Law. The new decree remains silent on establishing a dispute resolution forum aligned with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership’s requirement for a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)-like model, which may be addressed in a future circular.

Domain name deactivation

Unlike Decree 72, which had no provisions on the deactivation of a domain name, Decree 147 sets out situations where domain names will be deactivated, such as when there is a request from an authority, or when it is discovered that incorrect information was used for registration.

Clearer criteria for dispute resolution

Article 16 of Decree 147 sets out three clear criteria that must all be met for domain name dispute resolution to proceed:

  • Confusing similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, or personal name;

  • The defendant’s lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name; and

  • Bad faith.

Decree 72 had offered a broader list of elements that could trigger dispute resolution, an approach that was open to potential misinterpretation, as it suggested that proving any single element (such as confusing similarity) could justify domain name cancellation. By clarifying these elements, Decree 147 resolves this ambiguity and represents a significant improvement in legal clarity.

Formalising domain name freezing

Decree 147 formalises the freezing of disputed domain names during proceedings, a practice that was only briefly mentioned in Decree 72 and was regulated by subsequent ministerial circulars, which have less regulatory weight than government decrees. Now, under Decree 147, the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center (VNNIC) has the obligation to lock domain names at the request of authorities.

Challenges may remain in practice, especially in civil lawsuits, where domain name freezing requires a preliminary injunction. These injunctions have rarely been granted in intellectual property cases in Vietnam; in fact, only one preliminary injunction has been issued since the Intellectual Property Law took effect in 2005.

Judgment enforcement

Decree 147 formally addresses the process for transferring or cancelling a domain name after a successful dispute resolution, giving the plaintiff a 45-day grace period from the judgment’s effective date to register the domain name. After this period, the domain name will become available for public registration.

This new provision conflicts with the five-year window to enforce judgments granted to plaintiffs under the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments. In practice, enforceable judgments are often delayed – particularly in cases involving foreign respondents, where they can be delayed by a year or more – and this 45-day period may prove to be unrealistic.

This timeline also differs from the UDRP model, which mandates domain name transfer to the complainant within 10 days of a decision without further action.

Lack of effective remedies

Beyond domain name cancellation and re-registration within the 45-day window, Decree 147 does not introduce any new remedies. If the complainant seeks a transfer, the VNNIC may require additional documentation, including agreements, VAT invoices, and transfer prices – hurdles that can unnecessarily complicate the dispute resolution process.

Outlook for domain name dispute resolution in Vietnam

While Decree 147 represents welcome progress, it fails to resolve all the fundamental issues of overlap arising from domain names being covered by the Intellectual Property Law and the Law on Information Technology. A unified domain name dispute resolution framework under a UDRP-based model could be a better approach, simplifying the process and better protecting brand owners’ rights in Vietnam’s digital economy.

In the near term, the Ministry of Information and Communications is expected to issue a circular providing more guidance on domain name dispute resolution, which may help to bridge gaps and offer more detailed instructions on handling domain disputes under both legal frameworks.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Tim Gilman, who joined Kasowitz alongside three other partners, says he is excited to be part of the firm’s ‘elite’ litigation team
A backlash against a White House video promoting deportation and Casalonga opening a new office in Düsseldorf were also among the top talking points
The firm has brought on board two counsel and an associate to complement two previously revealed partner hires
Bradford Newman, who has joined the firm’s new Silicon Valley office as head of complex technology disputes, discusses plans to build the practice group and attract local talent
Managing IP summarises the highlights from the IP STARS rankings for copyright and IP transactions work, the final firm rankings release of the year
Developments included the first judgment from the Nordic Baltic division, an injunction covering the UK, and a new code of conduct
Alston & Bird acted for InterDigital, while Samsung was represented by Fish & Richardson, during the arbitration process
Powell Gilbert lawyers reveal how they navigated parallel EPO proceedings and collaborated with European peers to come out on top in the Nordic-Baltic Division’s first judgment
The firms posted increases in revenue and profit per equity partner, with both giving a nod to their IP expertise
EasyGroup, the owner of the easyJet airline, said in a press release that UK-based first-instance judges are “less experienced”, bringing a long-running debate back to the fore
Gift this article