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​ 

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 10, 2026
Vietnam has taken a significant step in regulating its e-commerce sector with the issuance of a new decree guiding the country’s recently enacted Law on E-Commerce. Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP, issued on June 30, 2026, and taking effect the following day, addresses mandatory platform policies, registration requirements for offshore platforms, additional obligations on platform operators, and market access conditions for foreign investors. Mandatory Policy Contents The decree sets out detailed guidance on the required contents of various platform policies, covering pricing, payment, display priority, livestream sales, delivery, returns, method of service provision, and service termination and refunds. Clarification of Obligations for Platform Operators The decree provides clarification of the obligations applicable to platform operators. Notably, intermediary e-commerce platform operators with online ordering functions must: Collect specific information to implement electronic identity verification of sellers; Cooperate with regulators by reporting online through the state e-commerce management system and by blocking, suspending, or removing content upon request of a competent authority; Maintain a mechanism to store contract data, including price, product or service information, and parties’ information, for at least three years from the date of contract conclusion; and If qualifying as a “large digital platform” under consumer protection law, maintain an online system for receiving and handling complaints and requests, and comply with enhanced content-removal requirements. Registration Requirements for Offshore Platforms Offshore e-commerce platforms, whether direct-sales, intermediary, social-network-based, or integrated, that conduct e-commerce activity in Vietnam must register with the Ministry of Industry and Trade if the platform: Allows Vietnamese-language selection; Uses a “.vn” domain; or Reaches 100,000 or more transactions with Vietnam-based buyers within a calendar year. Notably, the registration requirement now captures not only traditional intermediary platforms, but also direct-sales platforms. Foreign Investment Conditions Foreign investors holding a controlling interest in an intermediary e-commerce platform, a social media platform
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