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

August 27, 2013

Case Study: IP Enforcement Process in Lao PDR

Informed Counsel

More and more multinational corporations are seeking to grow their business in Lao PDR, also commonly known as Laos. With annual GDP growth rates of over 8% (according to the latest World Bank figures), it is easy to understand why so many companies are evaluating their options in this growing market. But when entering any new market, companies also need to consider how best to protect and enforce their intellectual property rights. This article reveals some important aspects about IP infringement and the enforcement process for brand owners operating in Lao PDR.

Market Survey

In early 2013, Tilleke & Gibbins sent in-house investigators to conduct a market survey of counterfeit goods in Vientiane, the capital city of Lao PDR. The investigation revealed San Jiang market and Talat Sao market to be the key offending areas, with a plethora of counterfeit products—including clothing, accessories, electronic devices, mobile phones, and food—widely available for purchase. After making these discoveries, an IP infringement alert was distributed to brand owners whose rights were being violated.

Investigation

A few months ago, a global corporation in the food, nutrition, and health industry learned that counterfeit products bearing its well-recognized brand and packaging were widespread in Savannakhet and Champasak provinces in southern Lao PDR. As part of a thorough investigation on behalf of this company, Tilleke & Gibbins investigators visited the shops selling counterfeit products to obtain photographs, video clips, and products, all of which served as supporting evidence of the infringing activities. During the investigation, the Lao DIP collaborated with the brand owner to assist in carrying out this anticounterfeiting operation.

Government Collaboration

Two weeks later, a meeting was held with Mr. Sitha Phouyavong, Director-General of the DIP, along with his team at the DIP. He invited officers from the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Science and Technology (which handle trading, tax, and IP–related issues), as well as police, public prosecutors, and judges, to answer questions and provide clarification on the issues. This proved helpful and productive for the brand owner, as it provided an opportunity to seek direct assistance in pursuing the appropriate measures against illegal traders in Lao PDR. It also allowed for a detailed discussion about the procedures for anticounterfeiting administrative proceedings with experienced and knowledgeable officials—an important step when enforcing IP rights in an unfamiliar jurisdiction.

Enforcement Process

After the officials reviewed the presentation and considered the supporting information and evidence, they deemed the brand owner’s requests and claims to be acceptable. Procedurally, the next step is for the DIP’s Anticounterfeit Committee to decide on the appropriate actions to take. Once this decision has been made, the Provincial Administrative Office will carry out those actions accordingly, at the Committee’s order.

The Committee will usually request the Provincial Administrative Office to send its officers to the illegal traders’ shops and hand them official Warning Notices. The officers will carry out inspections to evaluate the types of counterfeit products they have on display and in stock, estimate the amounts and values, and take notes for future reference. The officers will also demand that the traders reveal information about the sources or suppliers of their counterfeit products. The traders will then be asked to remove all counterfeit products from their shops before the officers revisit their shop in the next five to seven days. In case the officers find counterfeit items in their shops during the next visit, they will seize all of the counterfeit products and coordinate with the IP owner to discuss further criminal and/or civil action.

A brand owner may also request the Provincial Administrative Office to send Warning Notices to other shops selling similar goods in the same market, as well as shops in other markets in other cities located in that province. This proactive measure exists because officers anticipate the counterfeiters may simply try to contact other shops and sell the counterfeit products to them. To protect the public interest, authorities will tend to alert all shop owners in their jurisdiction about the issue at the same time, as this will prevent the original infringer from easily reselling the counterfeit products to other shops. Consequently, the infringer is left with the options of returning the counterfeit products to the supplier or simply destroying them.

Zero-Tolerance Policy

The anticounterfeiting administrative proceeding in Lao PDR uses settlement mediation or negotiation as a mandatory preliminary step. But if an offender is offered a chance for dispute settlement and refuses to comply or simply ignores the demands of the officials, then a zero-tolerance policy will be implemented immediately. If, by the given deadline, the officers revisit the shop that received the Warning Notice and find that it is still selling counterfeit products, all of the counterfeit products will be seized without hesitation. It is important to note that if the shop has stopped selling the counterfeit products after the warning, but the brand owner finds counterfeit products at the shop again in the next three to six months, it is possible to request the Provincial Administrative Office to raid the shop without further warning.

Important First Steps

Based on this experience, IP enforcement in Lao PDR looks promising for business owners.  The DIP and other related government agencies, however, need more experience to improve their practice, and they recognize this need to build their enforcement capacity. Still, these are important first steps toward building an effective IP-enforcement regime in the country, and brand owners should be encouraged by these recent developments.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted