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

January 15, 2017

Geographical Indications in Laos: A Boon for Local Producers and Investors?

Subscribe to Updates

The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) in Laos has, at long last, issued a decision on the Implementation of Geographical Indications under the Law on Intellectual Property No. 1119/MOST, dated October 25, 2016. The decision allows both local and foreign geographical indications (GIs) to be registered in Laos, and it outlines a number of matters concerning GIs that had not previously been included in the Law on Intellectual Property No. 01/MOST of 2011, such as registration processes and remedies.

Background

A GI is a sign used on a product that has a specific geographical origin and quality, or a reputation derived from that origin. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), both of which are international organizations focused on alleviating poverty, are assisting Laos to implement a legal framework for GIs.

The FAO and the AFD were closely involved in drafting the decision, and in shaping guidelines used to prepare a book of specifications which sets out standards to efficiently implement a GI framework and guarantee that products under a GI certification meet sufficiently high standards of quality in order to be compliant with global GI standards.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has also contributed to Laos’ GI framework. The ADB has conducted a study on the feasibility of GIs in Laos and has advocated the benefits that GIs have on local communities. The ADB’s support has been welcomed as a part of a larger scheme to help and support the development of SMEs in the country through programs such as the Support for Post-Private Sector and the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Development Program Partnership Framework. Accordingly, the ADB has provided technical assistance to enhance and support the national SME strategy and has helped train GI experts.

In a country where economic growth is highly dependent on natural resources, Laos is looking to diversify. The Lao government has recognized GIs as a way to promote local products with a certification trusted worldwide, and thus bolster exports and fuel economic growth.

Requirements to Register GIs

Under Articles 6 and 7 of MOST’s decision, “producer groups, operators, institutions, and/or interested persons” that want to apply to register a GI must establish a GI association. The association is responsible for ensuring that all of its members follow and comply with the book of specifications. In addition, the association has to inform the Lao Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) of any change in the list of producers/operators of the GIs, protect and valorize GIs, and implement any regulation relating to GIs. The DIP has the authority to examine and approve the registration of GIs.

The decision also allows a single producer/operator, either an individual or a legal entity, to register its product(s) and receive a GI certification after going through the application process. The decision states, however, that this represents only a very few “exceptional cases.”

Article 10 of the decision sets out a list of documents and other requirements that must be provided and fulfilled in order to register a GI with the DIP. The requirements are as follows:

  • Geographical indication application form;
  • Name of the geographical indication;
  • Name and address of the applicant;
  • Name and address of the representative and a power of attorney, if the application is filed through a representative;
  • Type of goods covered by the geographical indication application;
  • Book of specifications;
  • Summary of the book of specifications;
  • Receipt of payment of fee and service fee;
  • Any other relevant documents in relation to the geographical indication application.

In the case of registering a foreign GI, the applicant has to substantiate and verify that the foreign GI is currently protected in its country of origin. The term of protection for GIs is unlimited and commences from the filing date, which is determined as the date of submission of the complete set of documents above, and when payment of the fee and service fee is completed.

Once the application has been submitted, the DIP will conduct a preliminary examination of the application within 60 days of the filing date. If the application fulfills all of the requirements, the DIP will issue an acknowledgment to the applicant. If not all of the requirements have been fulfilled, the DIP will notify the applicant through a letter, detailing any points that need to be corrected.

After preliminary examination, substantive examination may take place. This includes, among other things, extensive research on the product’s origin and particulars, its reputation, whether any other existing GIs can be identified, or whether there are similarities to prior-registered trademarks.

If the DIP deems that the application complies with all of the requirements, the DIP will proceed to the next step of registering the GI. If the substantive examination requirements have not been met, a notification will be sent to the applicant, who will have 90 days to respond to the DIP’s request for further clarification or modification.

Amendments to an application may be allowed during the application period. It is possible to make these amendments without incurring a fee if the amendments are minor. Under Article 17 of the decision, minor amendments do not include:

  • Introducing new goods to the application;
  • Changes that relate to the essential characteristics or nature of the product;
  • Altering the “link” referred to in the book of specifications (i.e., any “details establishing the link between a given quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product and the geographical origin”);
  • Changes to the name, or to any part of the name, of the product;
  • Changes that affect the defined geographical area; or
  • Changes that increase restrictions on trade in the product or its raw materials.

The application can be made with English-language documents. However, these documents will need to be translated within 90 days of the date of the submission of the application. Therefore, applicants should bear in mind additional cost incurred by said translation.

When the registration process is complete, the GI will be registered and published in the Industrial Property Gazette, and a certificate will be issued to the applicant—all in this order.

For local GIs, it may take 12 to 18 months from the filing date to the issuance of the GI certificate. For foreign GIs, this duration may differ, depending on whether the GI has been previously registered in a country with which Laos has signed a Memorandum of Understanding in order to specifically ease and speed up the examination process.

To date, Laos has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan, and Singapore. If an applicant has proof that its GI has been registered in one of these countries, a certificate may be issued in a shorter amount of time—possibly one to three months.

Looking Forward

Laos has developed a strategic plan in support of GIs, which sets out objectives until the year 2025. The plan aims to: (1) develop a more affluent socioeconomic middle-class populace; (2) uplift rural areas that do not yet take part in or benefit enough from the country’s current inflow of foreign direct investment; and (3) foster a more sustainable economy.

Laos is currently carrying out surveys to identify local products that could be suitable for GI certification and facilitating easier access to credit, in order to allow local producers to register their local GIs abroad. This process is in its very early stages and the government has yet to provide further clarification, but it appears to be a step in the right direction in terms of positioning Lao products in the international market and supporting local producers.

The Lao government has demonstrated its commitment to protecting and promoting IP assets not only through GIs, but also through international commitments like the Madrid Protocol, which entered into force in Laos on March 7, 2016. This has sent a positive signal to investors, which has bolstered Laos’ reputation as an attractive destination for investment.  It may take some time, however, before local producers become aware of the potential boon that GIs offer.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More