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

November 14, 2022

Lao Customs Expands Border Measures to Protect IP Rights

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Every country has its own customs measures in place to monitor goods crossing its borders. These measures are implemented by customs departments and other government agencies that facilitate international trade by checking shipments and collecting taxes on goods that enter and leave the country.

Laos is one of the many countries that have sought to create a favorable environment for operators to export, transit, move, and store goods. In addition to tax collection duties, the Lao Customs Department also has measures to safeguard IP rights and prevent unfair competition, including protections against the infringement of trademarks and copyright—measures that have been in place since 2011.

This year, Laos further improved its framework for enforcing IP rights through border measures against infringing goods. In February 2022, the government published new customs instructions that added industrial designs to the list of safeguarded IP rights for the Lao Customs Department. This means that an IP owner can now request the Lao Customs Department to take action on products infringing a protected industrial design under the customs border measures.

Procedures

The Lao Customs Department enables IP rights holders to protect their IP by allowing them to request the suspension of clearance for any goods imported, exported, or transiting in Laos on the grounds that a trademark, copyright, or industrial design is being or is likely to be infringed.

To be eligible for this protection, IP rights holders must submit a request for a Declaration of Ownership to the Customs Department. Once approved, the application is forwarded to the provincial and capital customs offices to serve as a reference for officers inspecting goods crossing the Lao border.

The Declaration of Ownership should be accompanied by the relevant written form for inspection and supervision of goods that are the subject of IP rights. Various other information and documentary evidence is also necessary before authorities can take action on the request.

Applications are submitted to the Customs Department, which is in the Ministry of Finance. After receiving the application, the department will inform the applicant as to whether the application is approved within 10 working days. Once the application is approved, it will be forwarded to the provincial and capital customs offices for risk management and for use as a reference when officers inspect goods at the borders.

Customs protection is effective from the date of approval. The protection offered under the application is valid for two years and can be extended upon request.

Applicants can amend or add information to an application form throughout the protection of their IP rights through the Customs Department.

Getting Help in Specific Cases

An applicant may also seek to enforce IP protection measures against specific offenders by submitting a written request to the Customs Department, along with evidence of the suspected infringement and a cash security deposit or guarantee by a bank or other financial institution for LAK 10 million (approx. USD 580) to compensate for any potential loss in the event there was no IP infringement.

After the department receives the application and necessary supporting materials, customs officers will conduct an inspection and temporarily seize the goods as requested by the IP rights holder. Next, the customs officer will compare the information in the written customs declaration (e.g., names of the goods, brands, origin, value, packing, quality, transportation route, etc.) with the information in the IP rights protection database. If infringement is suspected, the customs officers have the right to detain the goods for 10 working days. The temporary suspension period may be extended if the applicant has provided evidence that dispute settlement or legal proceedings have been initiated in respect of the matter.

The customs officers may also choose to seize the goods and prosecute the infringer in accordance with the law.

Conclusion

When customs officers discover prohibited goods, the officers have the power to restrain or seize the goods, including any means of transport used in the commission of the customs offense. They also have the power to detain the persons involved, produce a case record, and hand over the suspect, together with the exhibits, to the Office of People’s Prosecutor for prosecution.

This broad authority is why brand owners active in Laos can benefit greatly by collaborating with the Customs Department in fighting against infringement of their IP rights.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More