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​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More