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 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
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More