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​ 

July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More