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​ 

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
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