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​ 

September 28, 2023
Protecting the aesthetic features of consumer items, such as household appliances, is essential for businesses looking to gain a competitive edge, particularly in the dynamic markets of Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand. Industrial design registrations (or design patents in Thailand) provide an effective means to protect the unique and ornamental designs of products, ensuring that their distinctive appearance is not imitated by competitors. This article provides a general overview of design systems in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand, as well as some key considerations for businesses and rights holders. All three of these countries use an examination system for assessing applications to protect designs. While all three jurisdictions are members of the Paris Convention, only Vietnam has fully completed the process of becoming a member of the Hague Agreement. The table below offers a general comparison of the three countries’ design systems, with additional details provided in the subsequent sections. Vietnam Owners of a household appliance design may seek design rights in Vietnam by filing a national design application at the Vietnam IP Office or by filing an international design application designating Vietnam either directly with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or indirectly through the office of the applicant’s contracting party under the Hague Agreement. Vietnam’s 2022 IP Law redefines “industrial design” as the external appearance of a product or part thereof to be assembled into a complex product, represented by shapes, lines, colors, or a combination thereof, and visible in the process of exploiting the utility of the product or complex product. The two options for obtaining design rights in Vietnam are detailed below. Vietnam National Design Application As Vietnam is a signatory to the Paris Convention, applicants are entitled to a six-month convention priority period from the filing date of the corresponding application in another jurisdiction. Under Vietnam’s
Read More
September 22, 2023
The most familiar and well-protected IP rights are copyrights, patents, and trademarks. However, geographical indications (GIs) are also protected by TRIPS, and are perhaps the most contested rights worldwide. Like a trademark, a GI identifies the origin of goods, but refers to a particular region which yields product qualities that cannot be replicated elsewhere. In practice, most GIs relate to agricultural products, and many originate from Europe, such as the terms Champagne, Mozzarella, and Parmesan. Due to the fundamental relationship between place and product, there have been major arguments that producers outside a specified region are not permitted to use the place name on product labels, no matter how similar their product is to the GI-protected product. A few years ago, a series of European GIs for cheese products were opposed in Vietnam by U.S. producers who considered the terms common names that should not be monopolized under the GI protection scheme. In addition, the overlapping rights between trademarks and GIs and their historically tempestuous relationship add more trauma to lawmakers and IP practitioners. Amid this controversy, Vietnam has joined many international agreements with regard to IP and GI rights, including the TRIPS Agreement, the CPTPP, and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA). Although Vietnam’s IP Law has been amended to reflect these agreements, Vietnamese lawmakers still bear a heavy responsibility in drafting and issuing legislation to further guide the implementation of the amended law, to not only correctly reflect Vietnam’s international commitments, but also to balance the rights of many sides with conflicting interests regarding GIs and trademarks. This legislation includes an upcoming circular regarding industrial property rights (the “draft Circular”). Information Transparency The CPTPP requires GI applications or petitions to be published for opposition, and provides procedures for opposing such GIs. In addition, it requires Vietnam to
Read More
September 4, 2023
With Vietnam’s entertainment industry booming, the demand for music to be used in films and video games has sharply increased. Sometimes a song featured in a movie’s soundtrack can become as popular as the movie itself. In order to use a song in a film, the producer of the film will typically need to enter into an agreement with the owner of a copyrighted work to have permission to use that work – with an agreed amount of royalty. Otherwise, their use could be considered a copyright infringement. However, what happens if the producer enters into an agreement with a song’s purported copyright owner, only to later find that such person does not really own the song entirely? A recent high-profile case in Vietnam brought this issue to light. The Dispute and Court Rulings The film “Face Off 4 – The Walking Guests,” financed and produced by Ly Hai Promotion Co., Ltd (“Ly Hai”) premiered in April 2019, and soon became a big success. In this film, Ly Hai used a song called “Ganh Me” on the basis of a March 2019 contract to use the song signed with the musician Quach Beem, who was recognized as the song owner in a copyright certificate issued on 24 April 2019 by the Copyright Office of Vietnam (COV). The dispute arose in November 2019 when an individual named Truong Minh Nhat discovered that the lyrics of “Ganh Me” were almost identical to a poem he had written and posted on his Facebook page in June 2014, well before the COV had issued the copyright certificate to Quach Beem. Mr. Nhat initiated a lawsuit against two defendants, Quach Beem and Ly Hai, for copyright infringement. In his petition, Mr. Nhat requested the court to, among other things, recognize him as the author
Read More
August 29, 2023
Cambodia recently tightened its trademark procedures by restricting the filing of separate single-class applications for a mark covering multiple classes, and tightening the deadline for filing affidavits of use or non-use. The latter requirement is especially consequential for existing registered trademark owners, as disregarding it could result in removal of the registered mark from Cambodia’s trademark registry. Multiple-Class Applications Cambodia’s Ministry of Commerce announced on August 1, 2023, that the Department of Intellectual Property Rights will now only accept a single application for a trademark covering more than one international class. This means that multiple-class applications are mandatory for applications covering more than one class. Previously, trademark applicants were allowed to file separate single-class applications for the same mark covering multiple classes. The new rule, which took effect immediately, aims to reduce unnecessary paperwork and facilitate the trademark registration process. Period for Filing Affidavits of Use or Non-Use On August 11, 2023, the Ministry of Commerce issued a notification stating that trademark registrants who miss the deadline for filing an affidavit of use or non-use will no longer be allowed to file an affidavit after the deadline or at the time of filing the trademark renewal, as had previously been allowed. This is in line with the Sub-Decree Concerning the Filing of an Affidavit of Use or Non-Use, which requires registered trademark owners to file an affidavit of use or non-use of the trademark within one year following the fifth anniversary of the mark’s registration or renewal. Importantly, the notification announces that registered trademarks will be removed from the registry if the trademark owner fails to file an affidavit of the mark’s use or non-use within the required time period. This announcement applies to both domestic registrations and international registrations made under the Madrid Protocol. Although the notification does
Read More