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

September 4, 2015

Administrative Actions Against Retailers in Laos

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

The key legislation that governs intellectual property in Laos is Law No. 01/NA of December 20, 2011, on Intellectual Property, as amended (IP Law). Under the IP Law, trademark owners can bring an administrative action, through the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR), against a retail shop which sells counterfeit products. This is currently the most effective anti-counterfeiting measure in Laos.

Administrative Actions

To initiate an administrative action against a retailer selling counterfeit products, a trademark owner must first send a letter to the DIPR which requests a resolution to the dispute. The DIPR will then take the following steps:

Step 1:  The DIPR will send a warning letter to each retail store which is known to carry the infringing products. Local newspapers will inform the public about the counterfeit products and order the infringers to destroy all counterfeit goods in their possession within a specific period of time.

Afterward, a raid committee, comprised of authorities including the DIPR, the Department of Tax, the Department of Customs, the Office of Economic Police, the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, and the Ministry of Health, among other organizations, together with the IP owner or its representative, will initiate a raid action against each retail store that received a warning letter. If counterfeit goods are found, the authorities will seize them for destruction and warn the infringers to not repeat the offense.

Step 2:  The raid committee, at the request of the IP owner, will conduct a second raid action against the same retail stores. If counterfeit goods are found again, the Ministry of Science and Technology may fine the infringer under Article 160 of the IP Law, which states that any individual, legal entity, or organization that commits a second or later unintentional violation will be fined 1 percent of the damages incurred. If they intentionally violate the law a second time or repeatedly, they will be fined 5 percent of the damages incurred for each violation.

Step 3:  A third raid action can be initiated if the IP owner would like to continue monitoring the same stores regardless of whether or not they are actually still selling counterfeit goods. If an infringer is found to have committed the same offense a third time, the authorities may order the infringer to close his or her business and advise the trademark owner to commence judicial proceedings.

Under Article 161 of the IP Law, a civil action can be brought against an infringer and damages can be awarded. A criminal procedure can be commenced under Article 162, as revised. This Article states that individuals who violate intellectual property rights, counterfeit, deceive, commit fraud, or commit acts of unfair competition that result in damages against third parties will be imprisoned for three months to two years and fined between LAK 500,000 (about USD 60) to LAK 10,000,000 (about USD 1225). If the violator has committed other criminal offenses, he or she will be punished under the Criminal Law.

Raid to Seize Counterfeit Motor Oil

In 2015, our IP enforcement team in Laos carried out a series of raid actions against sellers of counterfeit goods bearing the trademark of our client, a leading maker of Thai engines for agricultural activities. The raids were conducted in Vientiane and Savannakhet, and as a result, a large amount of counterfeit motor oil was seized and removed from the market.

Initially, warning letters were sent to each infringing retail store and local newspapers published stories about the upcoming raid action. The first raid action was conducted and counterfeit goods were seized and sent away for destruction.

The authorities warned the infringers not to infringe again or else the infringers would be fined. No other punishment was imposed on the infringers, as first-time offenders are not penalized and this was the first known counterfeiting offense of each infringer. If an infringer is a repeat offender (i.e., has infringed more than two times), the authorities may consider taking the case before the court and rendering punishment under Article 162, as revised, which can include imprisonment or a fine. After conducting the raid action, local newspapers and radio stations publicized the results.

This case study demonstrates that administrative actions are effective at creating public awareness of an IP owner’s rights. It also demonstrates the DIPR’s willingness to work with IP owners in Laos. IP owners can therefore be assured that efforts will be made by the government to protect their rights and to stem the tide of counterfeit goods. Trademark owners should use administrative actions to tackle trademark infringement and raise public awareness of their IP rights in Laos.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More