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

March 2, 2020

Laos Clarifies Trademark Registration Process under Its IP Law

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The intellectual property framework in Laos continues to evolve with the recent Decision on Trademarks and Trade Names No. 2822/MOST, dated December 7, 2019, which was published in January and took effect on February 11, 2020. The decision brings more clarity to the mark registration process, and it had been particularly anticipated since the May 2018 publication of the Amended Law on Intellectual Property No. 38/NA dated November 15, 2017 (the “IP Law”).

The decision provides important clarifications, as the IP Law introduced major changes into the Lao trademark legal framework but lacked specific details on implementation. Below are some of the key procedural items laid out in the decision.

Expansion of Mark Types   

The decision formally recognizes service marks, which were already being accepted in practice but had not been clearly indicated along with trademarks, collective marks, and certification marks.   

As for unconventional marks, the IP Law had already introduced the possibility of registering 3D marks or moving pictures as trademarks, but the exact requirements were not specified until the publication of this decision.

Registration Process

According to the decision, submission of a trademark application will be followed by four main stages, ending in publication in the official gazette of intellectual property.

1.  Formality Examination   

The formality examination, which must be completed within 60 days, consists of the examiner verifying that the minimum requirements to file a trademark registration are met. If the documentation is deemed complete, the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will publish the application in the official gazette and on the website of the DIP to inform third parties of the pending registration. If the documentation is incomplete, the applicant will have 60 days to provide the missing information to the DIP.

2. Publication and Opposition

The IP Law formalized the possibility of opposing a pending trademark registration but did not provide details beyond noting that owners have 60 days from the date of publication to oppose the mark. Now, the decision clarifies that if the formality examination is successful, the application will be published in the official gazette of intellectual property within 15 days. Note that the DIP now relies on the gazette in electronic format (PDF), which renders publication faster than when gazette had to be printed.

After an opposition application is filed, the DIP’s Department of Dispute Resolution will handle the review. The opposing party will be required to pay the relevant official fees at the time of filing.   

After being notified by the DIP that the trademark registration is being contested, the applicant has 60 days to respond. Meanwhile, the DIP may request further information from either party, again within 60 days. If a party is not satisfied with the ultimate decision and explanation provided by the DIP, an appeal may be filed with the newly created Committee of Final Appeal within 60 days (see below for more details).

3. Substantive Examination

This examination, for which no timeframe has been given, focuses on the characteristics of the trademark. The examiner checks the mark’s composition, uniqueness, and eligibility under the IP Law.

With regard to geographic indications (GIs), the decision notes that it covers GIs registered abroad as well as those registered in Laos. Nonetheless, if a GI has not been registered locally, the DIP may refuse the registration of a trademark using that GI as a component of its mark.

If the DIP issues an office action with respect to substantive examination, the applicant may respond and provide supporting documents or further information to the DIP, usually within 60 days, plus a possible extension of 30 days for valid reasons.

4.  Registration and Publication   

Once the substantive examination has been completed, the DIP will proceed with the registration of the trademark and its publication in the official gazette of intellectual property.

Cancellation Procedure   

The decision reiterates the possibility of asking for cancellation of a trademark within five years of its publication in the official gazette of intellectual property. With regard to non-use, a cancellation may be requested when a trademark has not been used for a five-year period, has only been given token use, or has not been used in good faith by the owner. The DIP will notify the owner of the request, and the owner will have 60 days to respond.

Renewal

The decision clarifies that the renewal of a trademark is possible starting from six months before the end of its term (a reduction from the previous one-year period).

Assignment

The decision provides that the transfer of rights from one entity to another must first be registered with the DIP and published in the official gazette of intellectual property. If there is a change of proprietorship of a legal entity, the trademark rights will be deemed transferred along with the proprietorship, unless the agreement states otherwise.

Authorization to Use a Trademark
The question of authorized use of a trademark may particularly interest franchisors looking to expand in Laos. Though the decision does not provide exhaustive details, it does stipulate that authorization to use a trademark must be registered with the DIP. Registration of the authorization (or a franchise agreement) will render it enforceable, whereupon the franchisee can act on behalf of the franchisor to protect the trademark in Laos.

Trademark Representatives

Trademark owners based abroad must use a local trademark representative (such as a registered attorney or recognized IP agent) to register their trademarks in Laos. Though the decision does not mention different requirements for international registrations, it is understood that the local agent requirement does not apply to international registrations.

The decision requires trademark owners to update their standing power of attorney (POA) with their local IP representative if the POA does not mention a time period for validity (in which case it would be considered valid for one transaction only). This is a change from previous regulations and practices, which allowed POAs to exist in perpetuity.

Administrative Remedies

The decision dedicates a chapter to administrative remedies (whereby an applicant files a complaint directly with the administration in charge), which are common in dispute resolution in Laos.

In line with the IP Law, administrative remedies now focus only on issues pertaining to the registration of trademarks, and should be triggered within 90 days of the issuance of a notice from the DIP to the applicant. By means of administrative remedy, an applicant may ask the DIP:

  1. To correct mistakes that may have been made by the DIP and that triggered an office action (e.g., name misspelled on the trademark certificate);
  2. To correct mistakes made by the applicant; and
  3. To reconsider the whole application if it is believed that the DIP has not correctly applied the law with regard to the registration of the trademark.

These requests are managed by the DIP’s Department of Dispute Resolution. If desired, the applicant may appeal the department’s remedy to the Committee of Final Appeal within 30 days.

Committee of Final Appeal

This is one of the main additions of the decision. The Committee of Final Appeal, which is the last recourse for a trademark owner with respect to administrative remedies, is intended to provide guidance to the DIP on contentious cases.
The committee is appointed on an ad hoc basis and is to be independent of the DIP. It cannot include people who have taken part in the registration process of the trademark in question. It is not yet known whether DIP officials who have not been involved in the registration process may be appointed, although this may be addressed in an upcoming regulation on dispute resolution of IP issues.

Conclusion
The decision is in line with other IP-related achievements over the past year, such as the modernization of the DIP website, which now provides information on the status of trademark applications and registrations. Despite some shortcomings, such as a lack of guidance on international registrations, this decision reflects the commitment of local authorities to protecting intellectual property as part of their efforts to meet internationally accepted legal standards, and is a very positive move forward for the Lao IP system.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More