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

July 30, 2019

Franchising in Laos

Subscribe to Updates
Franchise Law Insider

This article was first published on Franchising Insider —a blog maintained by US Law Firm Quarles & Brady LLP—and was co-authored by Dino Santaniello, head of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Vientiane office, and Robert A. Smith, a partner in the Washington, DC, office of Quarles & Brady LLP.

Introduction

Hidden between some of the most prominent powerhouses in Asia—China, Thailand, and Vietnam—Laos has often been overlooked by foreign investors seeking to capitalize on investment opportunities in the region. However, thanks to an increased commitment from the government to ease restrictions on foreign direct investment (FDI) and efforts to create a more well-rounded economy that is less dependent on natural resources, Laos has witnessed a surge of new franchise operations over the past few years. From food and beverage operators to car rental providers and clothing retailers, these new franchises represent a variety of different industries and help to diversify the Lao economy. To date, some of the most well-known brands present in Laos include Avis, Café Amazon, Mini Big C, Pizza Company, and Texas Chicken (the overseas version of Church’s Chicken).

Regulation

While there are no specific franchising regulations in Laos, there are a number of other pieces of legislation that govern franchises in the country.

The Decision on Wholesale and Retail Businesses 2015 No. 1005/MOIC.ITD, dated May 22, 2015, defines the term “franchise” and stipulates that general wholesale/retail activities can be carried out under this definition. While there are no prohibitions on foreigners who wish to invest in a franchised business, there are specific requirements and restrictions on FDI. For example, the minimum registered capital imposed on foreign investors will depend on the share equity held in the company carrying out the franchised business. Depending on the business activities of the franchise, additional restrictions on the ratio of shares between foreigners and Lao nationals may apply.

Because there is no law on franchising, there are no specific provisions that must be included in franchise agreements in Laos. However, all franchise agreements are governed by the common rules of the Law on Contract and Tort No. 01/NA, dated December 8, 2008 (Contract and Tort Law), and the Law on Notary No. 11/NA, dated November 26, 2009 (the Notary Law). Specifically, the Law on Notary provides that a contract must be certified by the Notary Office of the Ministry of Justice or one of its related departments (for certification purposes, a Lao version of the contract will be requested). This certification is important because it proves that a contract is valid and, thus, enforceable against a third party.

There are no statutory pre-contract disclosure requirements in Laos.

Good Faith

While the Contract and Tort Law provides for a duty of good faith in the performance of contracts, it fails to provide a definition of what “good faith” requires under Lao law. This legislation also remains silent on the duty of good faith during negotiations of franchise agreements. Generally, good faith should be construed as performing a contract without the intention to defraud the other party and acting without malice; however, the study of precedents in Laos remains challenging, making it difficult to assume an interpretation of the term that may be given by the Lao People’s Court.

Intellectual Property

There is no requirement to register a trademark under Lao law; however, brand owners are strongly advised to do so if they have plans to use and distribute products or services bearing the trademark in the Lao market. Laos uses the first-to-file system for trademark registrations, meaning that the first person to file a trademark will own the exclusive rights over that mark. According to the Law on Intellectual Property No. 38/NA, dated November 15, 2017 (the IP Law), registration of a trademark gives the registered owner the ability to act against infringers and to enforce their rights. For instance, a trademark owner in Laos has the right to enlist the assistance of the authorities to conduct seizures of counterfeit or imitation goods, provided that the mark owner has provided certified evidence that the goods are indeed fake.

According to the IP Law, copyrights do not need to be registered in order to be protected; those rights are granted immediately, without registration requirements, when a work is created. However, the owner of the work is advised to issue an official notification to claim copyright ownership, which can be used as strong evidence in the case of a violation or dispute.

Similarly, trade secrets are expressly mentioned under the IP Law, and also do not require registration in order to be protected. Trade secrets will remain protected as long as the information (1) remains confidential; (2) has trade value; and (3) is not easily accessible.

Competition Law

The Law on Business Competition, No. 60/NA, dated July 14, 2015 (the Business Competition Law), sanctions the act of imposing different prices or terms of purchase/sale for the same goods or services. Accordingly, a franchisor cannot treat any of its franchisees differently than others. Similarly, the Business Competition Law prohibits the imposition of terms and conditions through a sale/purchase agreement, and the act of forcing the performance of obligations which are not required by contract. This provision aims to protect franchisees from franchisors who may attempt to abuse their power during negotiations or during the performance of the contract. Finally, the Business Competition Law expressly prohibits price fixing. As such, franchisors are not permitted to impose a price related to their goods/services upon franchisees, except in very particular circumstances.

Non-compete clauses that amount to an absolute or excessive restraint of trade are not permitted. What is usually permissible, however, is a reasonable restraint that is narrow in scope and specific to the circumstances. Despite the absence of case law defining a reasonable scope for a non-compete provision, provisions with a very narrow scope relating to specific circumstances would likely be enforceable. For these reasons, post-contractual non-compete clauses should be drafted carefully, identifying a reasonable and clearly defined scope.

Taxation

Under the Law on Tax No. 70/NA, dated December 15, 2015, a 10 percent withholding tax applies to payments made with respect to dividends and a 5 percent withholding tax applies to intellectual property royalty fees.

Taxation rates may differ from those prescribed in the law (and outlined above), if the recipient of the payment is from a country that has signed a double taxation agreement with Laos. Currently, this applies to Brunei, China, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Dispute Resolution

In Laos, there is no dispute resolution body with specific responsibility for handling franchise disputes. Generally, franchise operators in Laos prefer to remedy disputes by filing complaints with the relevant administrative bodies (determined by the nature of the dispute), instead of filing complaints with the Lao People’s Court. Mediation is often considered a prerequisite to filing a complaint with the Lao People’s Court.

Laos is a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Accordingly, foreign arbitral awards are recognized and enforceable in Laos. However, local regulations provide a number of conditions that must be met prior to the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. Among other things, these conditions include requirements that the foreign arbitral award does not affect the sovereignty or contradict the laws of Laos, and does not affect the “peace and orderliness” of Lao society.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More
December 17, 2025
Vietnam’s National Assembly approved wide-ranging amendments to the Intellectual Property (IP) Law on December 10, 2025, marking one of the most significant overhauls of the country’s IP regime in recent years. The changes, which supplement and refine existing provisions, are designed to align Vietnam’s framework more closely with international standards while addressing practical challenges faced by rights holders and practitioners. The amendments will come into force on April 1, 2026. The most notable changes are detailed below. Recognition of partial and nonphysical industrial designs: Industrial design protection has been broadened to cover partial designs and nonphysical forms (class 32), explicitly extending rights to parts of products that are not independently circulated as well as digital and intangible product appearances. The law clarifies that the external appearances of nonphysical products are protected industrial designs, and circulation of digital copies of any part of that appearance will be treated as an act of using the industrial design. The provision on the industrial applicability of industrial designs has also been amended accordingly to include the uniform reproduction of nonphysical products in cyberspace. Resolving conflicts between overlapping rights: The IP Law provides a safeguard against conflicts when a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights. Where overlapping rights exist, the later-arising right will be terminated if its exercise interferes with the normal exploitation of an earlier right. The decision to terminate such a later right rests with the court. Use of published data for AI training: Organizations and individuals may use lawfully published and publicly accessible documents and data for scientific research, testing, and AI system training. Such use must not unreasonably prejudice the rights or legitimate interests of authors or IP rights holders. Where the documents and data fall under copyright or related rights protection, their use must also comply
Read More
December 15, 2025
Thailand is taking steps to energize its startup scene by drafting the Startup Promotion Law. This draft law aims to remove obstacles, open new funding opportunities, and provide coordinated government support. The goal is to make it easier for Thailand-based startups to grow and compete on a global stage. Why Is This Law Needed? For many years, Thai startups have operated under traditional company law frameworks that were not designed with high-growth businesses or with fundraising opportunities in mind. Restrictions on issuing bonds, offering shares to outside investors, and repurchasing shares for employee incentive programs made it challenging for emerging companies to access capital and accelerate their growth. The draft Startup Promotion Act seeks to remove these obstacles and foster a more competitive, entrepreneur-friendly environment in Thailand. Who’s in Charge? Two main organizations will oversee the startup ecosystem: Startup Promotion Committee: This group, to be appointed by the National Science, Research, and Innovation Policy Council, will set national strategies, policies, and budget; design promotional campaign and incentives; and propose further legislative amendments to promote startups. National Innovation Agency (NIA): Under the draft act, the NIA will be the main contact for startups and will serve as the secretariat office of the Startup Promotion Committee, coordinating data, advising startups, maintaining the public registry, and providing funding and investment (grants, repayable grants, loans, and equity) under committee criteria and, where applicable, cabinet approval. What Startups Are Eligible for Benefits? To be officially recognized and access benefits, a company must: Be a private limited company less than 10 years old at the time of application. Existing companies that already exceed the 10-year threshold may still apply for startup statues within one year of the law’s enactment, as long as they otherwise still qualify for the new regime. Have average annual revenue not
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More