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​ 

August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More