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​ 

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 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
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Thailand recently concluded the latest round of high-level trade discussions with its US trade counterparts. In addition to addressing concerns over claimed human rights abuses, forced labor, and the current trade imbalance with the US, one critical area of focus was US allegations of transshipment in Thailand’s import-export sector. Transshipment is the practice of routing goods through a third country to circumvent duties or tariffs on goods exported to the receiving country. Specifically, the US alleges that many Thai exporters declare a Thai origin for goods to qualify for preferential duties or exemptions without meeting the legal standards for establishing Thai product origin—an act that it claims masks the goods’ true origin. This is a particular matter of concern for US authorities, since transshipment is perceived to be a means by which Thai origin is claimed for many Chinese goods exported abroad. This perception affects a wide range of otherwise legitimate Thai-origin goods. The Thai trade delegation, led by Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Suphajee Suthumpun, met with counterparts from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on May 3–6. A subsequent team of Thai trade representatives, led by the Thai Ministry of Commerce vice minister, met with the USTR on May 13–14. These discussions directly impact the trade enforcement environment in Thailand, potentially affecting numerous business operators involved in the manufacture, import, or export of goods and components. Thailand’s position is that it strictly adheres to and enforces the legal standards for determining qualifying origin and that allegations of transshipment are largely unjustified. Nonetheless, it has agreed to increase its focus on trade compliance and enforcement in Thailand in return for commitments on reciprocal trade benefits with the US, including consideration of tariff exemptions on certain critical Thai imports into the US. Notable Outcomes There
Read More