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

November 27, 2013

Case Study: Raid Action Process in Lao PDR

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Part and parcel of protecting and enforcing brand owners’ intellectual property is preventing counterfeit goods that infringe their rights from ever reaching consumers. One way in which this can be accomplished is through conducting raid actions, which eliminate counterfeit products from the market and deter further violations by infringers. Removing counterfeit products from the market also protects consumers, who may be unaware of their counterfeit nature, and who may fall victim to the potentially hazardous side effects of goods produced without appropriate levels of quality control. Given the importance of this issue to brand owners, the general public, and government authorities, this article will shed light on the raid action process in Lao PDR.

Preliminary Steps

In August 2013, Tilleke & Gibbins began the process of conducting administrative raids against shops and hawkers selling counterfeit instant coffee products bearing our client’s world renowned trademark in Savansai Market, Savannakhet Province. The first step was to organize a consultation meeting with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) in Vientiane, and then file with them a complaint along with all supporting documents and evidence. The DIP officials agreed to launch anti-counterfeiting administrative proceedings, as was requested. They stated that they would work in collaboration with the Science and Technology Department of Savannakhet to carry out the administrative proceedings.

Two weeks after the initial consultation meeting, the DIP officials submitted a detailed plan of the market sweep and a full submission of the associated government fees and expenses to carry out the actions. To ensure transparency and compliance, the DIP also gave reassurance that they would issue an official receipt for the government fees and the expenses after they receive payment.

The Raids

On the day of the raids, Tilleke & Gibbins held a meeting with the Head of the Department of Science and Technology Department of Savannakhet, in addition to two DIP officers who had traveled from Vientiane, and 14 local officers who came from various government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Police Department, the Tax Department, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, among others. Tilleke & Gibbins spoke directly to the officials, and began by giving an overview of the client’s case and their concerns about intellectual property rights violations and the potential risks to the public who may unwittingly consume harmful counterfeit foods and beverages.

Before carrying out the administrative proceedings, Tilleke & Gibbins provided product identification training to the officials, in order to better familiarize them with our client’s products. This allowed the officials to differentiate between counterfeit and genuine products.

The brand owner had previously worked with local Food and Drug Administration officials to issue warning letters to the infringing vendors in Savansai Market, which is a required first step before taking further actions. Because these letters had already been issued, the government officials decided that sending additional warning notices was unnecessary at this stage. Instead, the officials proceeded to immediately conduct a search of Savansai Market and to seize all counterfeit instant coffee products bearing our client’s trademark.

The Outcome

Savansai Market is a medium-sized market that consists of roughly 100 to 150 small shops and hawkers. The market is extremely busy, because it is a major distribution center for food and consumer products from Vientiane and the southern provinces of Lao PDR, as well as imported products from Thailand. The officials began the raid by requesting to enter each of the infringers’ premises. They then inspected the goods on display, the goods in boxes, and the goods stored in more discrete areas such as cabinets or back rooms. The vendors, for the most part, passively agreed and accepted the officials’ request to search for counterfeit goods.

At the raid scene, the officials prepared their search and seizure reports and they asked the shop owners and/or shopkeepers to sign documents that confirmed both the numbers of and types of counterfeit goods found in their shops. This document can then be used against the infringer(s) during a civil or criminal lawsuit if the government officials or brand owners find that they are selling counterfeit goods again.

As a result of this market sweep, counterfeit instant coffee products were found and removed from seven shops and hawkers. Tilleke & Gibbins plans to carry out a follow-up market survey in the near future, as suggested by the officials.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More