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 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