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

May 13, 2026

Laos Includes Copyright Disputes in New Administrative IP Review Rules

Subscribe to Updates

Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters.

Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights.

These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions.

Key Changes

Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings:

  • Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted.
  • Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application.
  • Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted.
  • Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law.

The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest the scope of such a recordation, now have a dedicated administrative channel for relief without proceeding directly to court.

Under the decision, new plant variety registration disputes are explicitly brought within the committee’s jurisdiction, providing a clear administrative review pathway for the agricultural and life sciences sectors.

In addition, the decision codifies clear, step-by-step timelines (see below) for each type of proceeding and clarifies filing venues, with the DIP in Vientiane handling a number of matters and the Vientiane or provincial branches of the Department of Industry and Commerce handling others, depending on the specific circumstances and type of dispute.

Procedural Timelines

Key points from the decision’s timelines for administrative review proceedings are as follows:

  • Opposition to a pending application: Upon receiving a notice that an opposition has been filed against their application within 7 working days, an applicant has 60 days to submit clarifications and supporting evidence to the DIP. The DIP then has 30 days from receipt of complete information to issue its decision, with any dissatisfied party having a further 30 days to request reconsideration.
  • Appeal of a refused application: Once the DIP notifies an applicant of a refusal, the applicant has 60 days to respond with clarifications and evidence before the DIP proceeds to a final determination.
  • Reconsideration by a newly appointed committee: If reconsideration is sought—for either opposition or refusal proceedings—a new committee will be appointed to review the matter. Parties have 30 days to request reconsideration, and this window is strictly enforced—failing to file within this period will be deemed as having accepted the original decision, with no further administrative recourse.

Procedural Considerations

All submissions must be in the Lao language. Documents in English or other languages must be accompanied by a certified Lao translation. In addition, oppositions must include a certificate of registration of the relevant industrial property right from the applicant’s country of origin. Foreign parties should plan for this requirement well in advance, as obtaining such certificates can take time.

Upon receipt of a complete submission, the receiving office will forward the complete dossier to the central DIP within three working days.

The Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee charged with hearing administrative proceedings within the DIP system typically consists of three to five members and may appoint technical experts to assist with complex matters. All participants are subject to strict confidentiality obligations.

Outlook

Decision No. 0306/IC represents a meaningful step forward in Laos’s industrial property administrative framework. Copyright holders now have a formal administrative mechanism to challenge improper copyright recordations or to seek a ruling on whether a work qualifies for copyright protection, without immediately resorting to court proceedings. Companies in the agricultural sciences and plant biotechnology sectors have a clear administrative review pathway for new plant variety registration disputes. For trademark, patent, and industrial design portfolios, third parties have the right to file structured oppositions within defined timelines.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

November 27, 2023
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the landscape for innovators and creators. As many legal practitioners have pointed out, it’s imperative for both developers of AI and artists using generative AI to understand the intricacies of intellectual property (IP) strategies so they can navigate this evolving terrain successfully. This article lays out some essential considerations relating to the major types of IP for both developers and creators in the realm of generative AI. IP Strategies for Developers of Generative AI Developers of generative AI technologies play a pivotal role in the innovation landscape. There are three overarching IP-related issues to consider: protecting their own intellectual property, mitigating the risk of violating other people’s IP rights, and IP commercialization. Key aspects of these concerns, along with suggested approaches for developers, are outlined below. Protecting IP Copyrights. One of the primary considerations for AI developers is the protection of AI-generated works, such as art and source code. The good news is that in most countries, these creations enjoy copyright protection without the need for registration. As a result, the works are automatically protected from the moment of creation. However, it’s crucial to maintain comprehensive records of your work to establish your ownership. Trademarks. Trademarks are vital for AI developers looking to establish and protect their brand. Pay close attention to Nice classifications, particularly class 9 (for software), class 35 (for business management and online marketing), and class 42 (for software design and development). Registering trademarks in these classes can provide robust protection for your brand and products. Patents. For truly innovative AI algorithms, techniques, or processes, consider the option of patenting. Patents offer strong protection, but they require a thorough application process and the documentation of your innovation, including evidence that the invention is novel, non-obvious, and practically
Read More
November 21, 2023
In this article originally published by World Trademark Review, Tilleke & Gibbins senior associate David Mol shares advice on how to collaborate effectively with customs officials at Cambodian border points and ports, offering a guide on how to successfully monitor for—and enforce against—counterfeit and grey market goods.   Can rights holders record trademark and brand-related IP information with Customs and, if so, how?   At present, there is no formal customs IP recordal system in place in Cambodia. However, rights holders may consider: a request letter to Customs; or recordal of an exclusive distributorship. Request letter to Customs A request letter to Customs would be an effective measure in cases where a rights holder is aware of a specific customs checkpoint that is being used to smuggle infringing goods. The rights holder may request to set up a meeting with Customs at the checkpoint to provide officials with: guidance on the issue; the IP rights involved; and information on product identification. The rights holder may further request the official’s assistance in monitoring shipments for certain goods. Customs has been open and cooperative in the past, setting up direct communication lines between rights holders and border officials. Officials then: monitor shipments; exchange sighting reports; and set up inspections where applicable. However, this option is not directly regulated under any laws or regulations, and can only be considered as an ad hoc approach in cases where the rights holder is aware of issues at a specific checkpoint. We usually do not recommend using this approach to alert all checkpoints in Cambodia, as it is rather time-intensive, requiring close cooperation and active liaison with officials. Instead, targeting specific checkpoints has proven to work in our experience. A request letter to Customs may apply to all types of intellectual property. However, a recently issued regulation that addresses suspensions
Read More
October 30, 2023
A Resounding Victory The last days of October brought some excitement for one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, Novartis, when its patent litigation case in Vietnam against a local generic manufacturer, which had stretched over more than eight years, finally came to an end. The background of this case is quite simple. Novartis was the owner of a patent protecting the active ingredient vildagliptin, which was commercialized through its Galvus® product, a medicine used to treat type 2 diabetes. In 2015, the company found that a drug manufacturer in Vietnam’s Binh Duong province on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City was producing a medicinal product containing the vildagliptin active ingredient—an infringement of its patent. Novartis first submitted a request to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to apply administrative sanctions on this infringer. Subsequently, the MOST Inspectorate concluded in July 2015 that the defendant had committed patent infringement and ordered them to stop producing the infringing drugs and recall them from the market. However, the defendant did not comply with the conclusion, and sought an appeal while it continued to produce the infringing medicine. Realizing that administrative sanctions were not strict enough to deter the defendant, Novartis continued to protect its legitimate rights and interests by initiating a lawsuit at the provincial court where the defendant was headquartered, Binh Duong. Novartis claimed that the defendant had infringed the patent and requesting the defendant to compensate for damages at the highest level allowed by law, pay attorney fees, and publicly apologize to Novartis in specialized newspapers. This began a long journey full of challenges that finally ended with the second appellate judgment declared by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on October 17, 2023. The court accepted all claims raised by the
Read More
October 30, 2023
In its ongoing efforts to enhance Indonesia’s intellectual property e-filing system, the country’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has consistently introduced improvements to the online system. In recent months, the DGIP has implemented several noteworthy changes that differ from previous versions of the system. These changes bear significant importance for applicants who intend to file IP applications, and include the changes highlighted below for designs, patents, and trademarks. Designs File format and view limitation. Under current rules, all design drawings must be submitted in JPG format, and only one view is permitted per page. No refund requests. Once the application payment has been made, refund requests are no longer an option. Figure limitation. Only one figure is allowed for each design view, with an exception made for reference and perspective views. Patents Title consistency. If an invention is already registered outside Indonesia through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the title in the Indonesian registration application must match the title registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Bibliographic data matching. In national phase applications, it is essential for all bibliographic data to mirror the information from the PCT international phase as listed on WIPO’s website. This conformity is crucial for a seamless application process. Excess claim fees. A new requirement stipulates that excess claim fees must be paid at the time of filing the patent application. Trademarks Goods and services selection. The DGIP requires applicants to choose their desired goods and services from a predefined list, and the provided list is not editable. The DGIP periodically updates this list, but there is no fixed schedule for these updates. Moreover, these updates can sometimes entail removal of items from the list, and requesting the addition of goods or services is often challenging, especially if a similar alternative already exists
Read More