Vietnam’s new Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (“Decree 147”), which will come into effect on December 25, 2024, replacing Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP (“Decree 72”), introduces several changes to the regime for domain name dispute resolution. The new decree aims to clarify the legal framework and address some longstanding inconsistencies between Vietnam’s laws on intellectual property and information technology. The main changes related to domain name dispute resolution under Decree 147 are summarized below. Removal of Prescriptive Actions Decree 147 no longer lists specific actions for resolving domain name disputes. Decree 72 had outlined three methods: negotiation/mediation, arbitration, and court. However, IP practitioners had long criticized this approach, arguing it conflicted with the IP Law, which additionally allows administrative action. By omitting these methods, the new decree implies an acceptance of administrative action as provided in the IP Law. However, Decree 147 remains silent on establishing a dispute resolution forum aligned with the CPTPP’s requirement for a UDRP-like model. Currently, Vietnam’s available forums do not fully conform to the UDRP framework. An anticipated circular may provide further guidance on this aspect. Deactivation of Domain Names Decree 72 does not have any provision on the deactivation of a domain name. However, Decree 147 has stipulated some 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 be met for domain name dispute resolution to proceed: (i) confusing similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, or personal name; (ii) the defendant’s lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name; and (iii) bad faith. Previously,

In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For

On May 4, 2024, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 46/2024/ND-CP (“Decree 46”) amending and supplementing certain articles of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP dated August 29, 2013, on administrative sanctions in industrial property, as amended and supplemented in 2021 (“Decree 99”). Decree 46, which will come into force on July 1, 2024, is designed to bring Decree 99 in line with the amended IP Law of 2022. Some of the notable amendments of Decree 46 are discussed below. New Infringing Acts Decree 46 added the following new infringing acts subject to sanctions, which had not been set out in the former decree: Use of patents, utility solutions, layout designs, or industrial designs without paying compensation according to the provisions on temporary rights specified in Article 131 of the amended IP Law. Accepting a trademark license not in the form of a written contract in the case of using the licensed trademark on goods or packaging. Failure to notify clients of costs, charges, and fees related to procedures for establishing and protecting industrial property rights. Deceiving clients in the course of entering into and performing industrial property representative service contracts, but not to the extent of criminal prosecution, or forcing customers to enter into and perform industrial property representative service contracts. Although these acts are not common occurrences, it is nevertheless important to have clear regulations in order to ensure consistency with the amended IP Law and overcome difficulties and obstacles if such acts are committed in practice. Amendments and Supplements Decree 46 adopted amendments and supplements to main sanctions, additional sanctions, and remedial measures, specifically: The monetary fine imposed for violations against trade secrets is VND 50 million to VND 100 million (approx. USD 2,000 – USD 4,000), a large increase compared to the VND 5 million to VND 15

Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding