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​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
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