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

June 17, 2025

New Trade Inspection Implementation Decision in Laos

Subscribe to Updates

On January 9, 2025, the Lao official gazette published the newly amended Decision on Trade Inspection Implementation No. 0019/MOIC, dated January 6, 2025.

This decision aims to establish principles and rules for trade officers to inspect, fine, and take measures against violators of trade laws and their related regulations on business competition, business operations, and intellectual property rights to protect consumers and business operators in Laos.

Changes in Trade Inspection Procedures

Previously, trade inspection officers, operating independently under the central Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) or the provincial-level Department of Industry and Commerce (DOIC), were responsible for administrative raid actions focusing exclusively on intellectual property issues. However, following the enactment of Decision No. 0019/MOIC, trade inspection officers will now be grouped into the Trade Officers Unit, which will also include business competition officers and consumer protection officers. This unit will conduct and participate in raids, considering not only intellectual property laws but also competition and consumer protection laws when imposing penalties on infringers.

Trade Inspection Authority Levels

Trade inspection implementation is overseen by authorities at three levels:

  • Central level: Department of Business Competition and Trade Inspection, MOIC. The MOIC handles trade inspection work covering all provinces in Laos.
  • Provincial level: DOIC offices in provinces and Vientiane handle trade inspections covering two or more districts.
  • District level: Office of the Industry and Commerce offices in districts.

Violations

Individuals, legal entities, and organizations violating the newly amended trade inspection decision, the Decree on Trade Inspection, or other related regulations will be educated about the issue, warned, disciplined (for government servants), fined, subject to compensation for damage incurred, or punished by the relevant laws, depending on the gravity of the violation.

Trade Violations

Violations of trade laws and regulations concerning business operations will result in fines and additional measures. Examples include:

  • Failure to display product prices: Fines ranging from LAK 500,000 (approx. USD 25) to LAK 1,000,000 (approx. USD 50) per item.
  • False advertising: Fines ranging from LAK 500,000 to LAK 5,000,000 (approx. USD 250) per item, with possible seizure or destruction of products.
  • Defamatory advertising: Fines ranging from LAK 500,000 to LAK 1,000,000 if a complaint is filed.
  • Incorrect labeling or failure to label in Lao language: Fines ranging from LAK 500,000 to LAK 5,000,000 per item, with possible seizure or confiscation of products.
  • Counterfeiting labels: Fines ranging from LAK 200,000 (approx. USD 10) to LAK 2,000,000 (approx. USD 100) per instance, with confiscation of products and criminal prosecution.

Intellectual Property Violations

Minor offenses in violation of intellectual property laws will result in fines of 1% of the value of the damage incurred. Intentional violations will result in fines of 5% of the damage incurred per violation.

False Business Operations

Violations of the Enterprise Law No. 33/NA, dated December 29, 2022, will result in educational measures, warnings, disciplinary actions, fines, civil damages, or criminal penalties. Conducting business without a permit will result in similar measures.

Unauthorized Trading

Illegal trading of products will be punished or fined based on the value of the goods and compliance with ensuing legal obligations. Examples include:

  • Import-export goods processed at incorrect checkpoints: Remedial education and warnings for goods below LAK 5 million, fines of 5% for goods valued between LAK 5 million and LAK 10 million, and fines of 10% for goods above LAK 10 million.
  • Violations of the import and export regulations: Fines of 30% for the first offense, 50% for the second offense, and 70% for illegal import or export of goods.

Compliance

Businesses need to ensure their compliance with the newly amended trade inspection decision and all related laws and regulations, as violating a trade regulation, operating a business without an Enterprise Registration Certificate, or conducting a business for illicit purposes involving illegal goods may result in civil or criminal proceedings, depending on the violation and applicable regulations—in addition to the fines and measures outlined above.

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Customs and International Trade

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 18, 2026
In August 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade released a draft decree to replace Decree No. 35/2020/ND-CP detailing certain articles of the Competition Law (Decree 35). The key changes under the draft decree and their implications for M&A transactions in Vietnam are summarized below. Definition of “Management Body” Decree 35 uses the term “management body” (bộ phận điều hành) as one of the criteria to determine the group of affiliated enterprises for the purpose of merger filing. However, there is no definition of the term, leaving enterprises without a basis on which to apply it consistently. The draft decree introduces a statutory definition of “management body,” being a person or group of persons who (i) own more than 50% of charter capital or voting shares; (ii) hold ownership or use rights over more than 50% of an enterprise’s assets; (iii) are an enterprise manager under enterprise law; or (iv) have decision-making power over the enterprise’s resolutions, daily business operations, or business and investment plans. This helps enterprises better assess the scope of merger filing. Determination of Relevant Product Market Under Decree 35, the relevant product market is defined solely by reference to goods and services interchangeable in characteristics, intended use, and price without accommodating digital or zero-price products. The draft decree expands the relevant product market to include “products” (sản phẩm) in addition to traditional “goods and services,” which captures digital information products, AI products, and other novel offerings. Additionally, it adds “other relevant competitive factors” such as quality of products, goods, and services for determining the relevant product market, supplementing the existing factors of characteristics, intended use, and price. This addresses cases where price substitutability is not meaningful for certain consumers or users, i.e., zero-price products. Determination of Relevant Geographic Market Under Decree 35, only physical geographic
Read More
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