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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More