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

December 4, 2019

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in Laos

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Intellectual property (IP) protection and the awareness of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in Laos have been increasing recently due to the support of the Lao government, which expressly recognizes the importance of IP to the country’s ambitions for modernization, industrialization, and developing the country’s regional and global status. Such attitudes are reflected in policy statements and strategic planning goals, and local authorities are growing more supportive toward the enforcement of IPRs in Laos.

The main legislation regarding IP in Laos is the Law on Intellectual Property, as amended, which was approved by the National Assembly of Laos on November 15, 2017  (Lao IP Law). In addition, the Penal Code No.26/NA was adopted by the National Assembly of Laos on May 17, 2019; this regulates the criminal charges for infringers and the punishments and fines relating to IP infringement. There are several provisions in the legislation protecting IPRs and suppressing IPR infringement. The government of Laos has also launched supporting regulations regarding the importance of protecting IPRs and guaranteeing IP protection for foreign investors through legislation, such as the Law on Drugs and Medical Devices of 2011, the Law on Business Competition of 2015, and the Law on Investment Promotion of 2016.

IP Enforcement in Laos Concerning Trademarks

In Laos, trademarks are one of the most infringed areas of IP, causing severe injury in both monetary and non-monetary terms. To prevent such infringement, a trademark owner can prevent third parties from using identical or similar marks for goods or services that are identical, similar, or related to those for which a trademark is registered in accordance with article 58 of the Lao IP Law. Moreover, article 125 of the Lao IP Law also prohibits the counterfeiting of goods bearing registered trademarks. This article further stipulates that goods bearing an identical trademark to a validly registered mark for the same goods or services, without authorization, is prohibited.

The Lao IP Law provides sanctions against infringers, which include fines, warnings, and withdrawal of business licenses for repeat offenders. The legislation not only covers civil measures for protecting IPRs, but also extends protection under criminal legislation, such as article 246 of the Penal Code, which can be used to sanction IP infringers. Violations of IP, forgery, fraud, and unfair competition practices relating to intellectual property can cause damage to another person, and violators are subject to penalties, such as 1–3 years’ imprisonment, or re-education without deprivation of liberty, and fines ranging from LAK 5 million (approx. USD 568) to LAK 20 million (approx. USD 2,272).

Furthermore, article 288 of the Penal Code provides criminal sanctions for manufacturing and trading counterfeit goods, including imprisonment from three months to two years, and fines ranging from LAK 5 million (approx. USD 568) to LAK 10 million (approx. USD 1,136). If the offense is committed repeatedly as part of an organized group, or if it causes substantial damage, the offender can be punished with imprisonment of one to three years and a fine ranging from LAK 10 million (approx. USD 1,136) to LAK 50 million (approx. USD 5,680).

Online Trademark Enforcement

Currently, the Lao IP Law does not differentiate between offline and online infringement, and the law can be applied to both areas. In practice, high-profile online IP enforcement cases have yet to be reported, but it is expected that they will become more common in the near future. The policies of the government to protect IPRs will enhance the confidence of the private sector and encourage investors to invest further in Laos. Consequently, it seems likely that enforcement actions against online IP infringement are as conceivable as enforcement of offline infringement with regard to the Lao IP Law.

Key Factors in Processing IP Enforcement

There are currently no legal guidelines on practical enforcement measures, such as raid actions, and strong evidence is required in order to proceed with any enforcement action. To trigger such an action, the IPR owner must submit a formal complaint to the relevant authorities—the Ministry of Industry and Commerce or the Lao Economic Police under the Ministry of Public Security—depending on the nature of the infringement of each specific IPR.

Conducting a market survey or investigation into specific shops is necessary in order to collect evidence to file with the complaint. Such complaints must also include a number of documents, such as a report, photos of the infringing goods, and guidelines for distinguishing authentic goods from counterfeit products.

Initial consideration of the submitted documents may take up to one month. Once the authorities approve a raid action, it should not take more than 10 working days before execution. Discussions with the authorities may be required to devise a cooperative strategy before a raid action.

Case Study: Raid Action with Cooperation between Tilleke & Gibbins and the Authorities in Laos

In 2019, Tilleke & Gibbins’ IP Department and the relevant officers from Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Lao People’s Court, and the Economic Police, enforced the IPRs of an infringed brand owner by conducting raid actions against and seizures from shops selling counterfeit products. The trademark owners, both clients of Tilleke & Gibbins, are both well-known manufacturers of spare parts, engine oil and engines; one for agricultural machinery, and one for motorcycles and other automotive products.

Laos is a significant consumer of both of these brand owners’ products, and there are therefore many counterfeit products and imitations bearing unauthorized trademarks and having identical product designs to the authentic products.

During raid actions in the province of Khammouane and the city of Vientiane, we seized more than 43,000 counterfeit products bearing unauthorized trademarks from 45 shops—14,139 from 38 shops in Khammouane Province, comprising both spare parts and engine oil, and 29,474 items (again spare parts and engine oil) from seven shops in Vientiane. These counterfeit products caused a great deal of damage and loss of reputation to the brand owners.

 

This case study is an example of the continuing progress of IP enforcement in Laos and highlights that IP awareness and protection in Laos are increasing progressively. Therefore, brand owners who own valuable IP, and who have business interests in Laos, will feel more secure in the authorities’ ability and willingness to take increasingly rigorous legal actions against IP infringement in order to support IP owners and help them maintain their IPRs within the territory.

Tilleke & Gibbins continues to organize training sessions to enhance Lao officers’ skills in identifying and distinguishing between authentic and counterfeit products, which has resulted in greater cooperation during raid actions and increased effectiveness in the prevention and suppression of infringing and counterfeiting activities in Laos.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 29, 2026
Across the region, local brands have become key drivers of economic growth, cultural identity, and innovation, and Myanmar is no exception. From traditional products and creative industries to modern startups and small and medium‑sized enterprises (SMEs), Myanmar’s local brands are increasingly shaping domestic markets. However, as local brands grow, they also face higher risks of imitation, misuse, and unfair competition. In this context, protecting brand identity, creativity, and innovation through proper intellectual property (IP) strategies is essential to ensure that Myanmar’s homegrown businesses can grow sustainably, compete confidently, and retain the value of what they create. The Key IP Laws for Local Brands In 2019, Myanmar enacted a comprehensive suite of four IP laws, aligning the nation’s IP enforcement framework with international standards. Trademark Law 2019: This law introduced the “first-to-file” system into the country, with trademark rights primarily obtained through registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademarks protect brand names, logos, and other signs that distinguish goods or services. Registration grants the exclusive rights to use the mark and to prevent others from using identical or confusingly similar marks. Each registration lasts for 10 years from the filing date and can be renewed for subsequent 10-year periods. Copyright Law 2019: Copyright, which arises automatically upon creation, protects literary, artistic, musical, and audiovisual works, including software, advertisements, artwork, and social media content. While registration with the IPD is not mandatory under this law, it can be helpful for establishing evidence and supporting any future enforcement. The terms of protection for economic rights associated with copyrights vary depending on the type of work involved. In contrast, the protection for moral rights lasts indefinitely—continuing even after the author’s death. Industrial Design Law 2019: Under this law, any industrial design that is new and independently created can be filed with the
Read More
April 21, 2026
Vietnam continues to refine its intellectual property framework to align with the 2025 amendments to the Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). On March 31, 2026, the government issued Decree 100/2026/ND-CP (Decree 100), which substantially amends Decree 65/2023/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the IP Law (Decree 65). On the same day, the Ministry of Science and Technology released Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10), providing detailed procedural guidance and new forms. Both instruments took effect on April 1, 2026, along with the amended IP Law. While the updates touch on every IP right, trademark owners and brand strategists will find several practical and forward-looking changes that directly affect filing strategy, examination timelines, portfolio management, and enforcement readiness. 1. Fast-Track Substantive Examination for Eligible Applications One of the most business-friendly innovations is the new fast-track substantive examination pathway for applications meeting specified eligibility criteria. Successful fast-track applications enjoy a shortened substantive examination period of three months. This offers a significant competitive edge for tech-driven or regulated-sector brands. If the mark is identical or similar to a mark in another person’s trademark application with an earlier filing date in the case of a priority application that has not yet been processed, the fast-track process will return to the ordinary process. However, the law does not touch on cases where marks under fast-track examination face office action due to other reasons (i.e. lack of distinctiveness, confusingly similar to others’ copyright, trade name, industrial design, etc.) 2. AI-Generated Trademarks Receive Clear Protection Pathway Decree 100 explicitly addresses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in IP creation, amending Article 10a of Decree 65 to confirm that trademarks created with AI systems are fully protectable, provided they meet the standard requirements of registration. Trademarks face no additional “human authorship” hurdle (unlike patents or industrial designs). Brand owners
Read More
April 20, 2026
Myanmar’s industrial design registration regime has been steadily gaining momentum since the country officially began accepting applications under the Industrial Design Law of 2019. The Industrial Design Division of Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) has actively advanced examination and registration procedures, and as of March 2026, approximately 300 industrial design applications have been published in the IPD’s publicly accessible database—a meaningful milestone in the development of Myanmar’s emerging intellectual property framework. This figure reflects only published applications; additional filings remain pending and will be published after the conclusion of ongoing examination. Filing Requirements in Practice Compliance with a defined set of mandatory requirements is the foundation for filing a valid design application. These mandatory particulars must be provided at the time of filing in order to establish a filing date. These include the applicant’s and creator’s identifying details, a notarized appointment of representative form, the Locarno Classification of the associated product, and a set of graphic representations of the design across multiple standard views. Applicants must also provide a written description of the design and, where applicable, information relating to any priority claim or request for deferred publication. Filing fees are payable at the time of submission. Beyond these core requirements, applicants typically need to provide supplementary documentation, either at the time of filing or in response to a formality examination. This may include evidence of the applicant’s legal entitlement to the design—particularly where the applicant and creator are different parties—as well as supporting corporate and authorization documents. Where priority rights are claimed, the relevant documents must generally be submitted within three months of the Myanmar filing date, with certified English translations required for any non-English priority applications. The supplementary requirements may vary depending on the nature of the application and the examiner’s requests during the formality examination process.
Read More
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More