1. Legal Assessment of the Chagee.vn Domain Name Dispute
1.1. Context and Legal Perspectives of the Involved Parties
The chagee.vn domain name dispute, which arose in late April 2026, has become 1 major focal point of attention in the business community and among legal experts, raising many complex practical issues regarding the boundary between digital asset ownership and intellectual property rights for trademarks in the Vietnamese market. According to public information on media channels, the international milk tea brand Chagee, through 1 representative law firm, sent 1 21-page legal warning letter to the entity holding the chagee.vn domain name, Asset Vietnam, 1 legal entity within the 5VN ecosystem. The content of this legal document requested Asset Vietnam to return for free or cancel the chagee.vn domain name within 10 working days. This legal move stemmed from the fact that the Chagee brand was in the process of entering and expanding its business operations in the Vietnamese market after opening its first stores in Ho Chi Minh City.
Responding to the request from the milk tea brand, the representative of Asset Vietnam publicly rejected all legal arguments from Chagee and firmly refused to return or cancel the domain name. Asset Vietnam asserted that the registration of the chagee.vn domain name was carried out completely legally on January 4, 2026, at which time this domain name was in a free state on the management agency’s storage system. Prior to that, the chagee.vn domain name was owned by 1 individual during the period from 2023 to 2025 without any complaint or acquisition attempts from the enterprise associated with the Chagee trademark. Re-registering 1 expired domain name that has returned to a free state is 1 normal activity that strictly complies with the regulations on telecommunications resource registration.
The core point in Asset Vietnam’s counter-argument is the intended use of the domain name. This entity has clearly announced the planning orientation of chagee.vn to develop it into 1 lifestyle education platform under the Course.vn education system. This platform focuses on mental training and sharing multidisciplinary knowledge such as history, geography, artificial intelligence, and life skills for the younger generation, completely unused for the purpose of food, beverage, or milk tea business. Asset Vietnam also emphasized that the term “Chagee” originated from variants related to “tea” and is not 1 absolute exclusive sign that 1 business can prohibit other entities from using in completely different business sectors. This entity simultaneously affirmed that there is no implicit negotiation agreement or material benefit received from the opposing party to profit from the domain name registration, thereby rejecting accusations of domain name speculation.
1.2. Principles of Internet Resource Management in Vietnam and the Legality of Domain Registration
The foundational and consistent principle in the management of Internet resources in Vietnam, especially for the top-level national domain name “.vn”, is the first-come, first-served principle. This principle is clearly stipulated in the 2023 Law on Telecommunications and is further detailed in Clause 4, Article 9 of Decree 147/2024/ND-CP issued by the Government on November 9, 2024. Under current regulations, all agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals have equal rights and are not discriminated against in registering and using national domain names, provided they strictly comply with the procedures and pay all required fees.
Asset Vietnam’s submission of the application and completion of the chagee.vn registration while this domain name was unowned is 1 completely legal act in terms of administrative procedures. The state management agency, specifically the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center, is responsible for allocating the domain name to the earliest entity submitting a valid registration application without the obligation to proactively search whether that domain name overlaps with 1 commercial trademark that has not been widely recognized. This regulation aims to ensure transparency, speed, and fairness in the allocation of national telecommunications resources. Therefore, viewed purely from the perspective of telecommunications law and Internet resource management, Asset Vietnam is the entity with the legal right to use the chagee.vn domain name from the time the registration procedure was completed in January 2026.
1.3. The Boundary Between the First-Come, First-Served Principle and Unfair Competition
Although the first-come, first-served principle protects the rights of valid registrants, the legal boundary becomes complex when the right to use a domain name potentially directly conflicts with the established industrial property rights of 1 other entity. Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law strictly prohibits unfair competition acts related to the occupation and use of domain names in the cyber environment. Registering 1 domain name prior that is identical or confusingly similar to another person’s trademark or trade name can be considered a legal violation if it satisfies the element of bad faith according to Point d, Clause 1, Article 130 of the Intellectual Property Law.
In the Chagee.vn domain name dispute, Asset Vietnam has been very cautious in establishing 1 safe legal boundary by announcing a business orientation in the lifestyle education sector. The education sector is 1 completely independent market segment and has no connection to goods in the beverage or milk tea service sector of the Chagee brand. Proving unfair competition requires the plaintiff to provide convincing evidence that the defendant uses the domain name for the purpose of hindering business operations, smearing the brand, causing confusion for consumers regarding the origin of services, or for extortion purposes. Asset Vietnam proactively denied these purposes through public statements, thereby weakening the plaintiff’s argument about the existence of unfair competition acts in this case.
1.4. Evaluating the Applicability of the Well-Known Trademark Mechanism for Chagee in Vietnam
One of the most important legal arguments for the Chagee milk tea brand to overcome the limitations of differing business sectors and reclaim the chagee.vn domain name is proving that Chagee is 1 well-known trademark in the Vietnamese market. According to the provisions of Article 75 of the 2005 Intellectual Property Law, amended and supplemented in 2022, a well-known trademark is a trademark widely known by the relevant public sector in the territory of Vietnam. The 2022 amended regulation narrowed the scope of the public from the concept of general consumers down to the relevant public sector, creating more favorable conditions for businesses to prove the popularity of a trademark in specific areas.
Nevertheless, achieving official recognition as a well-known trademark in Vietnam remains one extremely rigorous legal process requiring a massive volume of evidence. The competent state authority will conduct a review based on 1 number or all of the 8 statutory criteria. These criteria include the number of consumers who know the mark, the territorial scope in which goods bearing the mark have been circulated, sales revenue from providing services bearing the mark, the duration of continuous use of the mark, the widespread reputation of the goods, the number of countries protecting the mark, the number of countries recognizing it as a well-known mark, as well as the transfer value of that mark.
According to legal experts and intellectual property management practices up to April 2026, although Chagee is one multinational brand with a certain level of coverage in one number of markets, this brand has not yet been officially recognized by the competent state authority in Vietnam as a well-known trademark. Practice shows that the list of trademarks recognized as well-known in Vietnam is very limited, usually focusing only on corporations with a long history of operations and nationwide recognition. Therefore, Chagee’s desire to use the privileges of a well-known trademark, which is protected across industry groups and beyond the food and beverage sector, to ask authorities to revoke a domain name owned by one organization orienting its activities in the education sector will face massive legal obstacles and is unlikely to succeed in the short term.
1.5. The Bad Faith Element in Domain Name Registration and Holding under Adjudication Practice
In international law, particularly ICANN’s UDRP policy, as well as in Vietnamese law, the bad faith element is 1 prerequisite legal condition to be able to issue a ruling forcing one entity to return a domain name. Clause 1, Article 130 of the Intellectual Property Law and its guiding documents all emphasize that registering, holding the right to use, or using a domain name identical or confusingly similar to another person’s trademark or trade name is only considered an act of unfair competition when accompanied by one clear bad faith.
Bad faith in adjudication practice is usually determined by Courts or Commercial Arbitrators through specific acts. These acts include registering a domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, leasing, or transferring it to the true owner of the trademark to make a profit at a value higher than normal registration costs. Additionally, registering for the purpose of preventing the trademark owner from reflecting their trademark in the corresponding domain name structure, registering for the purpose of disrupting a competitor’s business, or intentionally using the domain name to attract internet users to one’s website by creating confusion with the plaintiff’s trademark all constitute bad faith.
In Chagee’s dispute, because Asset Vietnam proactively provided information proving that the registration was not for the purpose of reselling it to the milk tea company and the orientation for use on the Course.vn education platform is functionally completely different, the bad faith element becomes very baseless and unlikely to be accepted by the adjudicating agency. According to dispute resolution principles, if a domain name is solely held as 1 legal asset or used for 1 purpose completely unrelated to the registered protection area of the trademark, requesting its revocation through coercive legal measures is unfeasible.
2. Comprehensive Legal Framework Governing Domain Name Management and Dispute Resolution Updated to 2026
2.1. Foundational Laws and Sub-law Documents
Vietnam’s legal system has formed one relatively comprehensive, synchronized, and strict legal corridor aimed at managing Internet resources and providing a basis for resolving domain name disputes. This legal structure includes normative legal documents at various levels of validity. At the highest statutory level, the 2023 Law on Telecommunications, especially the content in Article 52, has stipulated the general principles for resolving disputes related to the registration and use of the Vietnamese national domain name “.vn”. Simultaneously, the Intellectual Property Law, comprehensively amended and supplemented in 2022, provides a solid legal foundation to handle acts infringing upon rights to trademarks and trade names through domain names in cyberspace.
At the Government decree level, Decree 147/2024/ND-CP issued on November 9, 2024, officially effective from December 25, 2024, detailed the management, provision, and use of Internet services and information online. This critical decree completely repealed and replaced older Decrees including Decree 72/2013/ND-CP and Decree 27/2018/ND-CP, bringing breakthrough new regulations on administrative procedures in registration, maintenance, as well as clearly stipulating cases of suspension and revocation of domain names. Following this decree, at the circular level, Circular 48/2025/TT-BKHCN issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology on December 24, 2025, plays the role of detailing professional content on the registration, allocation, granting, use, return, suspension, revocation, and especially the mechanism for managing domain names while dispute resolution or violation processing is ongoing. Circular 48/2025/TT-BKHCN is the latest sub-law document directly governing the litigation process and administrative measures exclusively applied to national domain name resources.
2.2. Detailed Regulations on the Revocation of National Domain Names under Decree 147/2024/ND-CP
The safety and stability of corporate domain name ownership are guaranteed by law through strict regulations on authority and revocation grounds. Under Clause 16, Article 9 of Decree 147/2024/ND-CP, the state management agency for telecommunications resources, specifically the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center, is only permitted to carry out the revocation of top-level national “.vn” domain names in 6 specific cases that are legally mandatory to execute. This revocation cannot depend on the subjective will of the management agency but must be entirely based on legally effective administrative or judicial decisions.
Case 1 is when the management agency executes a domain name revocation request based on a decision, judgment, or domain name dispute resolution ruling of competent agencies and organizations such as the People’s Court, Commercial Arbitration Center, or based on a Successful Mediation Document under the provisions of the law on commercial mediation. Case 2 relates to the direct decision of the Minister of Information and Communications for the purpose of serving national interests, protecting public interests, socio-economic development, or ensuring national defense and security factors. Case 3 is the enforcement of an administrative sanctioning decision by a specialized inspection agency when this agency applies an additional sanctioning form or a remedial measure requiring the mandatory revocation of the violating domain name.
Case 4 is applied based on a written request from a criminal investigation agency or a competent state agency to promptly prevent acts of using domain names to infringe upon national security or harm social order and safety. Case 5 arises when the domain name owner fails to fulfill the obligation to pay the usage maintenance fee in full within 30 days from the date the system notifies the due fee payment. Case 6 is applied when the management agency discovers that the domain name registration information is inaccurate, shows signs of forgery, or the identity of the registrant cannot be determined because the registrant refuses to update or supplement valid identification information according to electronic identification regulations.
2.3. Domain Name Dispute Resolution Process under Circular 48/2025/TT-BKHCN
The process for resolving disputes over Vietnam’s national domain names is strictly regulated to ensure the legitimate rights of both plaintiffs and defendants during litigation. Circular 48/2025/TT-BKHCN provides very detailed regulations on the principles of managing the status of domain names during a lawsuit. While the adjudicating agency accepts the dispute case, the domain name will immediately be put into a technical freeze status according to the provisions in Article 16 of the Circular. This freezing status means that the current entity is not allowed to perform operations to transfer the right to use the domain name, is not allowed to change the registrant’s information, cannot change the managing Registrar, and cannot arbitrarily return the domain name to the state. This blockade measure plays a vital role in ensuring that internet resources are not dispersed, thereby ensuring the ability to enforce the judgment after the final ruling of the dispute resolution agency.
After the dispute resolution process concludes and there is a legally effective judgment compelling the revocation of the domain name from the defendant, the plaintiff in the case will enjoy one special priority right. Under current regulations, the plaintiff is granted priority to re-register that exact revoked domain name within 45 days from the date the judgment or dispute resolution decision takes legal effect. This is an appropriate mechanism to protect the interests of the infringed party. If after this 45-day period the plaintiff does not carry out the registration and fee payment procedures, that domain name will be released by the management agency and return to a free state so that any other organization or individual can register it under the first-come, first-served principle.
2.4. International Legal Framework for Generic Top-Level Domains via ICANN Policies
The fundamental difference between managing the national domain name “.vn” and generic top-level international domain names, such as domains ending in “.com” or “.net”, lies in the governing legal system. International domain names are not under the direct management of the Ministry of Information and Communications or the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center, but are subject to the management of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, abbreviated as ICANN. Therefore, all disputes claiming ownership of international domain names must strictly adhere to the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, also known as UDRP, issued and continuously updated by ICANN.
Dispute resolution under the UDRP policy is carried out through independent dispute resolution centers authorized by ICANN, most notably the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization. The UDRP process requires the plaintiff to submit a dossier proving 3 core elements simultaneously. Element 1 is that the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name that the plaintiff legally owns. Element two is that the defendant holding the domain name has absolutely no legitimate rights or interests associated with that domain name. Element 3 is that the defendant’s registration and use of the domain name must be carried out with one clear bad faith aimed at profiting or unfair competition. If any one of these 3 elements is missing, the complaint under the UDRP procedure will be rejected by the arbitration organization.
3. Intellectual Property Protection for Trademarks and Trade Names under the 2022 Amended Intellectual Property Law
3.1. Conditions for Establishment and Scope of Industrial Property Rights for Trade Names
Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Law provides parallel but significantly different protection mechanisms for trademarks and trade names. Trademarks require the entity to go through one complex administrative process involving filing an application, waiting for the state agency to examine the formality and content, and finally being granted a Trademark Registration Certificate by the Intellectual Property Office before industrial property rights officially arise, except in the special case of well-known trademarks. Conversely, for intellectual property assets that are trade names, industrial property rights are automatically established by law entirely based on the actual, legal use of that trade name in daily business activities without compelling the business to carry out any protection registration procedures at the competent state agency.
However, not every name of a business automatically becomes a protected trade name. According to Article 76 and Article 78 of the Intellectual Property Law, one trade name to be protected by law must meet the core condition of being capable of distinguishing the business entity carrying that name from other business entities operating in the same sector and within the same specific business area. The structure of one typical trade name includes a component describing the type of enterprise, the field of business operations, and a proper name component. Within this, the proper name component is the central sign that determines the distinctiveness of the entire trade name and is the part most strictly protected by law. Names comprising only words describing the business field or geographical locations without containing a proper name will not be eligible for protection as a trade name under Article 73 of the Intellectual Property Law.
3.2. Criteria for Determining Acts of Infringement of Trade Name Rights in Cyberspace
Any acts by organizations or individuals using commercial indications, including the registration and use of domain names on the internet, that are identical or similar to another person’s legally prior-used trade name, are strictly prohibited by law. According to Article 129 of the Intellectual Property Law, if this use occurs for the same type of goods, services or similar goods, services, with the purpose of unfair competition and carries the risk of causing confusion for the consuming public, then that act constitutes an intellectual property rights infringement against the trade name.
Determining confusion evaluates not only based on visual or phonetic similarities of the character string constituting the domain name compared to the trade name, but must also evaluate the overlap in the business field. If 2 businesses have similar names but operate in two completely different economic sectors, for example, one side in construction services and 1 side in cosmetics, the use of a similar name does not give rise to a risk of confusion for consumers and therefore is not considered an act of infringing rights to the trade name. Direct competition in the same market segment or the same operational area is the most important basis for authorities to conclude on an infringement act.
3.3. Administrative and Judicial Measures in Handling Intellectual Property Infringements
Vietnam’s legal system provides a variety of measures to handle acts infringing rights to trade names and trademarks, including civil, administrative, and criminal measures. For domain name infringements, administrative sanctioning measures are often preferred by businesses due to their swift procedures and high deterrent nature. According to Article 14 of Decree 99/2013/ND-CP, amended and supplemented by Decree 126/2021/ND-CP and Decree 46/2024/ND-CP, the specialized Inspection agency has the authority to issue an administrative sanctioning decision for the act of using an infringing domain name, and simultaneously can apply remedial measures such as compelling a change of domain name information, compelling the return of the domain name, or compelling the revocation of the domain name. This sanctioning decision is the legal basis for the Vietnam Internet Network Information Center to execute resource revocation operations under Decree 147/2024/ND-CP.
Alongside the administrative route, the infringed entity fully has the right to file a civil lawsuit at the competent People’s Court or sue at a Commercial Arbitration Center if the parties have a valid arbitration agreement. The judgment of the Court or the Arbitral award is final and binding. Through judicial measures, the plaintiff can not only reclaim control of the domain name but also has the opportunity to request the defendant to compensate for material and mental damages arising from unfair competition acts, as well as request the defendant to issue public apologies and corrections in the mass media.
4. Legal Strategy Recommendations for the Business Community to Protect Digital Assets
4.1. Proactive Strategy for Establishing Intellectual Property Rights from the Start-up Phase
Drawing profound experiences from high-profile and resource-consuming disputes like the Chagee milk tea brand case, as well as from cases involving domain name duplication due to personnel factors like luatminhnguyen, the prerequisite legal lesson for all businesses is to always maintain a proactive stance in establishing intellectual property rights right from the start-up phase of business operations. Over-reliance and complete dependence on the automatic protection mechanism of trade names under the Intellectual Property Law will bring enormous evidentiary risks should litigation unfortunately occur. The reason is that the business will have to independently collect and submit a series of documents proving continuous use, territorial scope of operations, and the actual recognition level of the public towards that name, one complex and costly process.
To establish a solid and safe legal shield, businesses need to file applications for exclusive trademark protection registration at the Intellectual Property Office for the word mark, device mark, and core brand identifiers. Legally possessing a Trademark Registration Certificate is one type of evidence with absolute probative value regarding industrial property rights. When any dispute related to domain names occurs, presenting the trademark protection certificate will help dispute resolution agencies quickly determine the legality of the plaintiff without having to go through one process of evaluating the highly complex conditions of a trade name or having to prove the strict criteria of a well-known trademark under Article 75 of the Intellectual Property Law. Additionally, businesses should also set up a specialized department to regularly search the data of state agencies to early detect trademark registration applications that could cause conflicts, thereby exercising the right to oppose the granting of certificates in one timely and most effective manner.
4.2. Planning a Defensive Domain Registration Policy and Building a Solid Legal Evidence System
The independent separation between the legal system regulating intellectual property trademark registration and the policy system allocating Internet resource registration creates one certain time lag. This very legal and temporal gap is a weakness that professional domain name speculators or competitors in the market can exploit to pre-register domain names containing the business’s brand. To prevent this risk in its infancy, the most optimal strategy that modern businesses need to apply is implementing a defensive domain registration policy. Simultaneously with establishing a corporate legal entity or launching one new brand positioning, the owner must proceed to collectively register all the most popular domain name formats. This digital asset block should include both important national domain name formats like.vn,.com.vn and global international domain name formats like.com,.net,.org. The financial cost to annually maintain a defensive domain name portfolio to protect a brand is one insignificant number if compared to the massive damage to commercial reputation and the colossal legal costs incurred when a business is forced to participate in dispute resolution processes lasting many years.
Simultaneously, for trade name and trademark components that are in the pending approval process and have not been officially granted protection certificates by authorities, businesses must build one highly systematic and scientific evidence storage system. This storage system should include all transaction invoices and receipts, service provision contracts for clients, expense vouchers for executing advertising campaigns, and data files reflecting the actual reach to consumers across the entire territory of Vietnam. In the digital business environment, applying the service of establishing a bailiff’s report performed by Bailiff offices to record the current content of violating websites, public domain name sale offers at unreasonably high prices, or activities faking brand designs to deceive customers is particularly important evidence collection technique. This legally binding evidence system ensures absolute objectivity and is recognized by the Court system as a solid basis to prove the bad faith element of the defendant in litigation cases.
4.3. Building an Emergency Response Process and Choosing an Effective Dispute Resolution Mechanism
When a business discovers its branded digital assets are blatantly occupied or used by one 3rd party for unfair competition purposes, the business leadership needs to stay calm to comprehensively assess the situation to select the most appropriate response measure. It is unadvisable to immediately initiate threatening actions on social networks or issue demand letters without a solid legal foundation. These incautious actions can cause the business to fall into a counterproductive situation and suffer image damage.
Businesses need to quickly coordinate closely with law practice organizations knowledgeable in the intellectual property field to conduct full collection of bailiff’s report evidence, meticulously clarify the extent of the violation, and accurately determine the jurisdiction for resolving the case. Clearly determining whether to apply ICANN’s UDRP mechanism for international domain names or apply Decree 147/2024/ND-CP for national domain names will decide the entire direction of the legal campaign. The most optimal dispute resolution sequence should start by sending one official legal document requesting the cessation of the violating act. If the opponent shows an uncooperative attitude, filing a petition requesting intervention from the specialized Inspection agency, conducting investigations to sanction administrative violations, and applying the remedial measure of compelling domain name revocation is one direction that saves maximum time and financial costs for businesses. In cases involving complex compensation claims or directly relating to international domain names beyond the control of Vietnamese administrative agencies, civil lawsuit procedures at the competent People’s Court system or taking the matter for resolution at International Commercial Arbitration Centers will be the most thorough legal solution to protect brand integrity in cyberspace. Seriously applying and complying with these strategic legal measures will help the business community maximally control risks and fully preserve the value of their intellectual property assets in the fiercely competitive digital economy era.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not replace professional legal advice. For support tailored to your situation, please contact HMLF lawyers.
HARLEY MILLER LAW FIRM
- Email: [email protected]
- Web: hmlf.vn
- Hotline: +84937215585
- Address: M floor, 391 Dien Bien Phu, Ban Co Ward, HCMC, Vietnam