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 30, 2020

Laos Imposes Sweeping COVID-19 Lockdown Measures

Subscribe to Updates

On March 29, 2020, the Prime Minister of Laos issued Order No. 06/PM on the Reinforcement of Measures for the Containment, Prevention, and Full Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This order is by far the most serious announcement in the country since the crisis began, and follows the first official report of COVID-19 cases by the Lao authorities outside the capital, Vientiane. In a bid to limit transmission across the country as much as possible, the Prime Minister’s order imposes strong lockdown measures on businesses and the general public. It also expands the powers of the National Taskforce Committee for COVID-19 Prevention and Control—a special taskforce established on February 3, 2020, to provide appropriate responses and public information to prevent the spread of the virus in the country.

All measures below take effect on March 30, 2020, unless expressly stated otherwise.

Residential Lockdown Imposed with Limited Exceptions

All persons are prohibited from leaving their houses or residences, except in necessary circumstances, such as: 

  • Buying food and necessary consumables;
  • Going to hospital; and
  • Carrying out activities expressly authorized to continue operating, such as banks, financial institutions, the stock exchange, listed companies, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, ambulances, post services, telecommunications, electricity, water treatment, collection and treatment of waste, agricultural produce markets, retail shops, supermarkets, and restaurants and beverage shops for the provision of takeaway and delivery services only.

Service providers that are allowed to remain open must practice staff rotation measures and other measures ordered by the taskforce.

Factories (expressly including garment factories, but covering all factories deemed to be “at risk,” which is expected to be interpreted broadly) and entertainment venues must close. Employers of factory employees must provide their employees with a necessary welfare allowance for the duration of the closure. However, factories that are involved in the production of equipment and medical devices can still operate.

Hotels and resorts are permitted to continue services relating to accommodation and restaurants only.

All persons are prohibited from traveling to a location in which infected people have been reported, or places which may be dangerous in this respect. Exemptions may be granted by the local authorities for certain specific reasons.

Government and Civil Service

All civil servants and government employees will stop working at their respective offices from April 1 until April 11, 2020. In practice, this break will be extended up to April 19, to accommodate the Lao New Year (although celebrations will be restricted by the prohibition of gatherings, outlined below). Certain civil servants and employees will be exempted from this, including police officers; firefighters; employees involved in the management of the electricity system, water treatment and distribution, and telecommunications; medical staff; volunteers (a category that is yet to be defined); and civil servants and employees who are mobilized for the prevention of the infection, and to control and treat infected persons.

In addition, the Prime Minister requires that all ministries and administrations, at the central and local level, should organize a minimum service so that important work can continue, and appoint enough staff to do so. All other government staff are to be encouraged to work using remote communication.

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has not yet issued an official statement on the subject, but from information available to us, we understand that they currently remain open on a staff rotation basis. At this stage, it is not yet clear how the DIP plans to treat any deadlines falling within the lockdown period. We are in regular contact with the DIP, and we will update you accordingly as the situation develops.

Prohibition on Gatherings of More Than 10 People

Gatherings or events at which more than 10 people are assembled are prohibited (including gatherings for traditional events, such as religious events or for the Lao New Year). Exemptions for some events (such as funerals) may be provided, subject to the strict exercise of measures to prevent the spread of the virus (including two meter social distancing, wearing of masks, and hand washing).

Price Control

There is also a general prohibition on increasing prices on essential consumables such as masks, products to wash hands, medicine to treat symptoms, medical devices, rice, food, water, and others. The list is not exhaustive and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by trade inspectors, who are instructed to carry out surveillance and issue punitive measures in collaboration with the police.

Border Closures Except for Transportation of Goods

Borders will remain closed to individuals. Operators who are authorized to continue to operate in transportation of goods can cross borders at the international checkpoints, but they must strictly follow the measures required at the checkpoints. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is empowered to coordinate with relevant agencies to facilitate the return of foreign citizens who wish to return to their home country.

The order is effective from March 30, 2020, until April 19, 2020, subject to any amendments which the government will provide by way of a notification. The order also provides the website address https://covid19.gov.la/ (in Lao language) in order to stay updated on the situation in Laos.

If you have any questions about how these measures may affect your business in Laos, please contact Dino Santaniello, head of our Laos team, at [email protected].

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
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