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 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More