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

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

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of internet services and online information (Decree 147), which will take effect on December 25 2024 and replaces the outdated, 11-year-old Decree 72 on the same topic.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

The Getty Images v Stability AI case, which will hear untested points of law, is a reminder of the importance of the legal system and the excitement it can generate
Firms explain the IP concerns that can arise amid attempts by brands to show off their ‘Canadianness’ to consumers
Counsel say they will be monitoring issues such as the placement of house marks, and how Mondelēz demonstrates a likelihood of confusion in its dispute with Aldi
The EUIPO expanding its mediation services and a new Riyadh office for Simmons & Simmons were also among the top talking points this week
David Boundy explains why Pierson Ferdinand provides a platform that will allow him to use administrative law to address IP concerns
Developments included an anti-anti-suit injunction being granted for the first time, and the court clarifying that it can adjudicate over alleged infringements that occurred before June 2023
Griffith Hack’s Amanda Stark, one of our ‘Top 250 Women in IP’, explains how peer support from male colleagues is crucial, and reveals why the life sciences sector is thriving
The case, which could offer clarity on the training of AI models within the context of copyright law, will go to trial in the UK next week
CMS IndusLaw co-founder Suneeth Katarki says he plans to hire a patent team in India and argues that IP should play a major role within full-service firms
Partners at the firm explain why they’ve seen more SEP cases at the ITC, and why they are comfortable recommending the forum to clients
Gift this article