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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More