WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/ACC/LAO/43 
28 August 2012 
 (12-4677) 
Working Party on the 
Accession of Lao PDR Original:   English 
 
 
 
ACCESSION OF LAO PDR 
 
Additional Questions and Replies 
 
 
 The following submission, dated 28 August 2012, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR). 
 
_______________ 
   WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page i 
 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
IV.  POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS ..................................................................... 1  
-  Trading Rights ................................................................................................................ .......... 1 
A.  IMPORT REGULATIONS ...................................................................................................... 4  
-  Quantitative import restrictions, includi ng prohibitions, quotas and licensing 
systems ....................................................................................................................... ................ 4  
V.  TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY REGIME ......................................... 9  
VI.  POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN SERVICES .............................................................. 33   WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 1 
 
 
  IV. POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS 
- Trading Rights Question 1  We appreciate the additional information provided on the products for which Lao PDR is 
seeking a transition period with respect to trading rights.  As Working Party Members continue 
to review this request with Lao PDR, and build ing upon the text suggested by Lao PDR, we 
suggest the following commitment text to better refl ect the status of the discussion.  Please note 
that the product descriptions have been update d to reflect the descriptions contained in 
Lao PDR's Goods Schedule.   
 xx. The representative of Lao PDR confirmed that from [1 July [2014] for the goods 
listed in Table [X], and from] the date of  accession [for all other goods,] Lao PDR would 
grant any natural or legal person of a WTO Member, regardless of physical presence or investment in Lao PDR, the right to be the importer of record, and that its laws and regulations relating to the right to trade in goods and all fees, charges or taxes levied in 
connection with such trade would conform fully with its WTO obligations, including 
Articles VIII:1(a), XI:1, and III:2 and 4 of the GATT 1994.  He also confirmed that from 
[1 July [2014] for the goods listed in Table [X ], and] from the date of accession [for all 
other goods,] the right to import and to export would be granted in a non-discriminatory and non-discretionar y manner, and any requirements for 
commercial registration or application for trading rights would be for customs and 
fiscal purposes only, and would not require investment in Lao PDR.  [He further 
confirmed that no later than 1 July [2014], Lao PDR would amend its legislation with 
respect to the goods listed in Table [X] to meet  Lao PDR's trading rights obligations for 
these goods].  The representative of Lao PDR noted that compliance with its trading rights obligations would not grant importers the right to distribute goods in Lao PDR.  He confirmed that importers would be free to select a distributor or distributors of their 
choice.  He also expressed his understanding that the granting of trading rights would 
not affect the  rights of the Government of Lao PDR to adopt regulations consistent with 
the WTO Agreement, including those relating to import licensing, technical barriers to 
trade or sanitary and phytosanitary measures.   The Working Party took note of these 
commitments.   
[Table [X]] 
HS Code Description 
052710 
 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than crude; 
preparations not elsewhere specified or in cluded, containing by weight 70% or 
more of petroleum oils or of oils obtain ed from bituminous minerals, these oils 
being the basic constituents of the preparations; waste oils. 
052711 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons: liquefied:  Natural Gas, 
Propane, Butanes, Ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene, Other 
094403; 094407.10-094407.28; 
020601 Wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sap-wood, or roughly 
squared;   
Wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sli ced or peeled, whether or not planed, 
sanded or end-jointed, of a thickness ex ceeding 6 mm:  Coni ferous, Mahogany 
(Swietenia spp.), Virola, Imbuia and Balsa, Dark Red Meranti, Light Red 
Meranti and Meranti Bakau, White La uan, White Meranti, White Seraya, 
Yellow Meranti and Alan, Sapelli, Iroko;  Bulbs, tubers, tuberous roots, corms, cro wns and rhizomes, dormant, in growth 
or in flower; chicory plants and roots other than roots of heading 1212. WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 2  
 
  HS Code Description 
021006 Rice:  Rice in the husk (paddy or rough), Husked (brown) rice, Semi-milled or 
wholly milled rice, Broken Rice. 
052523 063816 Portland cement, alumin ous cement, slag cement, su persulfate cement and 
similar hydraulic cements, whether or not colored or in the form of clinkers; 
Refractory cements, mortars, concretes and similar compositions, other than 
products of heading 3801. 
Answer: 
Lao PDR accepts the commitment language with some  edits following consultations with Members: 
xx. The representative of Lao PDR confirmed that, unless otherwise specified below, 
from the date of accession to the WTO, the a pplication of all laws, regulations and other 
measures relating to trading rights concerning the importation or exportation of goods, would 
be in conformity with the relevant provisions  of the WTO Agreements, including Articles I, 
III, VIII, and XI of the GATT 1994.  From the date of accession, Lao PDR's laws and regulations relating to all fees, charges or tax es levied in connection with such trade would 
conform fully with its WTO obligations, including Articles VIII:1(a), XI:1, and III:2 and 4 of 
the GATT 1994.  The representative of Lao PDR confirmed that, within two years from the 
date of WTO accession and in accordance with the action plan set-out in Table 7(b) for the goods listed in Table 7(a), and from the date of  accession for all other goods, Lao PDR would 
grant any natural or legal person of a WTO Member, regardless of physical presence or investment in Lao PDR, the right to be the im porter of record.  He also confirmed that in 
conformity with WTO Agreements, Lao PDR would grant trading rights in a 
non-discriminatory and non-discretionary manner.  He confirmed that for the goods listed in 
Table 7(a), Lao PDR would do so two years from the date of WTO accession and in accordance with the action plan set-out in Tabl e 7(b), and from the date of accession for all 
other goods.  The granting of trading rights w ould be without prejudice to WTO-consistent 
requirements and conditions that may be imposed by Lao PDR on both imported and 
domestic like products without di scrimination.  Any requirements for commercial registration 
or application for trading rights would be for customs and fiscal purposes only, and would not 
require investment in Lao PDR.  The representative of Lao PDR noted that compliance with its trading rights obligations would not grant importers the right to distribute goods in Lao PDR.  He confirmed that im porters would be free to select a distributor or distributors of 
their choice.  He also expressed his understanding that the granting of trading rights would 
not affect the rights of the Government of Lao PDR to adopt regulations consistent with the 
WTO Agreement, including those relating to impor t licensing, technical barriers to trade or 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
Table 7(a): Goods for which the Trading Rights in Paragraph 59 will apply within Two Years from 
the Date of WTO Accession 
HS Code Description 
2710 
 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than crude; preparations not 
elsewhere specified or included, containing by weight 70% or more of petroleum oils or of oils 
obtained from bituminous minerals, these oils being the basic constituents of the preparations; waste oils. 
2711 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons: liquefied: Natural Gas, Propane, Butanes, 
Ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene, Other 
1006 Rice: Rice in the husk (paddy or rough), Husked (brown) rice, Semi-milled or wholly milled rice, 
whether or not polished or glazed Broken Rice.  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 3 
 
 
  HS Code Description 
2523 
3816 Portland cement, aluminous cemen t, slag cement, supersulfate  cement and similar hydraulic 
cements, whether or not colored or in the form of clinkers; 
Refractory cements, mortars, conc retes and similar compositions, other than products of heading 
3801. 
7213 
7214 
7215 
7216 Bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularly wound coils , of iron or non-alloy steel; other bars and rods 
of iron or non-alloy steel, not further worked than forged, hot-rolled, hot drawn or hot-extruded, 
but including those twisted after rolling; other bars and rods of iron or non alloy steel; angles, 
shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel. 
 
Table 7(b):  Action Plan for Implem enting Trading Rights Commitments  
for the goods listed in Table 7(a) 
Action to be Taken Time-frame 
Legal framework will be in compliance with WTO trading 
rights commitments. Date of accession 
Study on implementing trading rights obligations for the goods 
listed in Table 7(a), to include re view of practices in recently 
acceded countries and ne ighbouring countries. November 2013 
Train key officials in line ministries for implementing trading 
rights commitments for the goods listed in Table 7(a) i.e. 
Customs Department, Ministry of Finance; Department of 
Import-Export, Internal Trade Department, Department of 
General Business Promotion, Ministry of Industry and Commerce, Department of Standard, etc. 2013 - November 2014 
Enhancing public awareness of trading rights implementation 
for the goods listed in Table 7(a). 2013 - November 2014 
Full implementation of trading rights commitments for goods 
listed in Table 7(a). Two years from the date of accession  
 
Question 2  
Paragraph 58 of the draft Working Party Re port (WT/ACC/SPEC/LAO/5/Rev.1):  We thank 
Lao PDR for our exchanges on this important i ssue.  Taking account of the explanations 
provided by Lao PDR, we understand an agreem ent was reached that the legislative and 
regulatory framework be in place by the date of accession, while a transition period of two years 
as from the date of accession would be granted for implementation.  We request that a detailed 
Action Plan be included in the draft Working Party Report setting-out the main steps until full implementation.  We would be happy to reco nsider paragraph 58 on that basis.   
Answer: 
Please see the Action Plan provided in Lao PDR's response to Question 1. WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 4  
 
  A. IMPORT REGULATIONS 
- Quantitative import restrictions, including  prohibitions, quotas and licensing systems 
Questions concerning the Decision on Procedures for Importation, Manageme nt and Utilization of 
Chainsaw [Wood-cutting machine] 
Question 3 
Article 4 requires that applications for an im port licence of Chainsaws with documents in 
foreign language to be accompanied with its Lao tr anslation as certified by the Notary Office of 
Lao PDR.   
- Where can you find a Certifying Notary Office of Lao PDR?   
- How will small businesses located in other WT O Member countries be able to access a 
Certifying Notary Office of Lao PDR? 
Answer: 
The Notary Office is located in each province and at each embassy of Lao PDR.    
Small businesses located in other WTO Member c ountries are able to access a Notary Office of 
Lao PDR at the Lao PDR's embassy located in the rele vant country or at the Notary Office located in 
the relevant province of Lao PDR.  Note that the application for import licen sing is still paper-based.  
Consequently the applicant must physically or by representation come to Lao PDR to submit the 
application for import licensing.  The applican t or his/her representative may request for the 
certification of his/her foreign-language documen ts which are to be submitted along with the 
application for an import licence.  The notariza tion process takes one or two days depending on the 
length of translated documents.  While the absen ce of Lao PDR's embassy in some countries might 
create inconvenience for those applicants who want  to apply for notarization directly in such 
countries, such inconvenience should not be de emed as unreasonable from the trade facilitation 
perspective, taking into account the relatively easy  process of notarization and the necessity of Lao 
PDR's officials for understanding foreign-language documents. 
Question 4 
Article 6 - Fee and Charges:  Fee and Charge fo r issuance and modification of chainsaw import 
licenses shall follow the Presidential Edict on "F ees and Services Charges" as set-out for each 
period. 
- How does the Lao PDR ensure that the Fees  and Charges in Article 6 are reasonable 
and in line with the cost of the service rendered? 
Answer: 
Note that this import licensing regulation is issued at the ministerial level, while the fees and charges 
are set out by a higher authority (President of Lao PDR upon approval from the National Assembly).  
In issuing the Edict on "Fees and Services Charges" , Lao PDR's relevant authorities have reviewed 
the proposed fees and charges to make sure that they are reasonable for the services rendered, taking 
into account the approximate volume of works usually  required and spent for such services.  In fact, 
after our research, most of the fees and charges of Lao PDR are much lower than those of other 
countries.  Lao PDR's Government promotes the transparency of collection of fees and charges by including all fees and charges in the Presi dential Edict on "Fees and Services Charges".  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Question 5 
Article 8 - Registration of Chainsaw: Imported  chainsaws [wood-cutting machines] shall be 
registered with Department of Agriculture and Forestry at provincial level and Vientiane Capital.  
- Are domestic producers also required to be  registered at the provincial and Vientiane 
Capital levels?  If not, how is this require ment consistent with the Article 1.2 of the 
WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures which states that "Members shall ensure that the administrative procedures u sed to implement import licensing regimes 
are in conformity with the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994…"? 
Answer: 
As per Article 20 paragraph 2 (last sentence) of the Law No. 6/NA "On Forestry" of 24 December 
2007, both domestically produced and imported chai nsaws are required to be registered.  The 
mentioned Article 20 states that: "for ownership, wood exploitation equipments  shall be registered 
with Agriculture and Forestry authority":  The regi stration must be made with  the relevant provincial 
or Vientiane Capital's Agriculture and Forestry Department. 
Question 6 Article 8 - Registration of Chainsaw:  Each ch ainsaw [wood-cutting machines] shall have its 
own registration, which is valid for the period of  one year and shall be renewed after expiration 
date. 
- What is the process for renewal of registration of each chainsaw?  Is renewal automatic?  
How does Lao PDR ensure that this procedure complies with Article 1.5 of the 
WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures? 
Answer: 
The relevant provincial or Vientiane Capital's Ag riculture and Forestry Department will renew a 
registration certificate upon request of the user of a chainsaw.  
While the import licensing requirement applies to th e imports, the registration requirement applies to 
the use of domestic and imported chainsaws.  Please note the use regulation is not under the 
WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
Question 7 
Article 9 - Management and Utilization of Chainsaw [wood-cutting machines]:  Each time 
before using the chainsaw [wood-cutting machines],  users must notify the purpose of use to the 
Department of Agriculture and Forestry at provincial level and Vientiane Capital for 
monitoring and inspection.  When utilization or movement of chainsaw each time, the 
registration certificate must be attached with su ch chainsaw to facilitate the inspection by the 
Forestry officers. 
- Why must chainsaw users notify the Depart ment of Agriculture and Forestry at both 
the provincial and Vientiane Capital leve l each time before using the chainsaw? 
- What factors does Lao PDR consider in ma king the decision regarding use of a 
chainsaw?  
- Does this apply only to users of imported chainsaws? WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 6  
 
  - In what way is the approval to use a chain saw related to the requi rement to obtain an 
import licence?  
- What kind of proof does a chain saw user of imported chain saws have to obtain from 
the authorities?  
- Do chain saw users of domestic chain saws have to obtain proof of approval from the 
Lao PDR authorities? 
Answer: 
There is an error of translation.  Actually the notification is to be made to the provincial authority 
(if located in a province) or to the Vientiane Capita l's authority (if located in Vientiane Capital) and 
not both since provinces and Vientiane Capital are local administrations of the same level.  The 
purpose of notification is for information and mon itoring over the use of chainsaws.  Alike the 
registration, the notification applies to both domest ic and imported chainsaws.  Please note that the 
use regulation is not under the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  
The notification does not involve an approval. The notification requirement applies to both domestic and imported chainsaws.   
Only the relevant registration certificat e must accompany the use of chainsaws. 
Question 8 
Article 9 - Management and Utilization of Chainsaw [wood-cutting machines]: The chainsaw 
[wood-cutting machines] including parts or components which are imported for projects 
authorized by the Government or there is a jo int contract, the implementation shall comply 
with the mutual bilateral agreement on the ba sis of inspection by the Forestry officers.   
- What is the "mutual bilateral agreement" to which Lao PDR refers?  Are users of 
domestically produced chainsaws required  to comply with a "mutual bilateral 
agreement" of some kind? 
Answer: 
It refers to concession agreements between invest ors and the Lao PDR Government, which require the 
use of chainsaws to clear woods in the concessi on areas as agreed in su ch concession agreements 
prior to the construction works start.  These conce ssion agreements are mostly related to hydropower 
projects, mining projects and other construction proj ects where the cutting and removal of some trees 
are necessary.  Unlike the general import of ch ainsaws for commercial purposes, the chainsaws 
imported under these concession agreements are under temporary import regime which requires their 
re-exportation at the end of their intended use.  The referred concession agreements normally exempt 
such temporary imports from some legal requirements such as import licensing or security deposit to 
speed up the concessionaires' works. 
The concession agreements are, among other things , to facilitate the temporary imports by the 
concessionaires and thus are not relevant to domesti cally-produced chainsaws.  Note that currently 
there is no chainsaw production in the Lao PDR. 
Question 9 Article 9 - Management and Utilization of Chainsaw [wood-cutting machines]: In case the 
chainsaw [wood-cutting machines] is damaged and irreparable, or chainsaw without import  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 7 
 
 
  licence or no registration licence has been us ed prior to the approval from the relevant 
authorities, Department of Agriculture and Fores try at Provincial and Capital shall confiscate 
them and prohibit from using it. 
- Please clarify the meaning of this provision.  Are there any additional penalties beyond 
confiscation that will be imposed on the user of a chainsaw that did not have an import 
licence or registration licence?  What are there?  What happens if the user has an 
import or registration licence but did not seek prior approval for use? 
Answer: 
The damaged and irreparable chainsaws or good chainsaws but without import licence or without 
registration certificate must be confiscated and prohi bited from use.  There is no additional penalty on 
the user for such use. 
Only the notification is required for the use of chainsaws.  No further approval is required. 
Questions concerning the Decision on Procedures fo r Importation and Distribution of Publications 
Question 10 
Section 1 - General Provisions, Article 1 - Purpose:  This Decision sets-out procedures for import 
and distribution of publication in Lao PDR.  This Decision has no purpose to restrict the 
quantity or value of importation, but only fo r statistical and import monitoring purposes, 
through the automatic im port licensing regime. 
- How and under what Lao PDR law(s) do th e provisions of this decision apply to 
domestic publications?   
- How are the requirements of this decision consistent with Article 1.2 of the 
WTO Agreement on Import Licensing? 
- How can the licensing requirements set-out in  this decision be considered automatic 
import licensing? 
Answer: 
The distribution requirements apply to both domestic  and imported publications.  Note that the right 
to import is separate from the right to distribute.  While the right to import is granted in accordance 
with the trading rights obligations of Lao PDR, the right to distribute requires the enterprise registration in the Lao PDR regardless the source of  goods to be distributed (whether domestic or 
imported).  
The Decision does not provide any discretion for the relevant authority in its issuance of import 
licenses.  When the application documentation (as re quired in the Decision) has been duly submitted, 
the authority must, without any discretion, issue an  import licence in accordan ce with the procedures 
for automatic import licensing as set out in Decree No. 180/PM "On the Import Licensing Procedures for Imported Goods" of 7 July 2009. WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 8  
 
  Question 11 
Section 2 - Rights and Requirements of Import and Distribution of Publication, Article 5 -
Requirements for Distribution Publication: Public ation distribution enterprises shall comply 
with the following requirements: 
1. Be an authorized distributor of a publication; 
2. Have education or training course related to publication with a certificate. 
3. Have an approval from the Publication Administration Authority. 
- With regard to paragraphs 1, 2, and 3:  What if an importer is not a "publication 
distribution enterprise"?  Is the importer that is not a distributor within the meaning 
of Section 2 of this decision allowed to enter the Laotian market and sell to a 
publication enterprise that complies with these Articles? 
Answer: 
Note as per Article 14 of Decree No. 114/GoL "On Im port and Export of Goods" of 6 April 2011, the 
right to import is separate from the right to dist ribute goods in the Lao PDR.  The latter requires 
enterprise registration (commercial presence) in the Lao PDR, in accordance with Law No. 11/NA 
"On Enterprises" of 9 November 2005.  
The separation of the right to import and the right  to distribute goods in the Lao PDR, under Decree 
No. 114/GoL "On Import and Export of Goods" of 6 April 2011 does not prevent the importer from 
distributing/selling goods outside the Lao PDR's jurisdiction. 
Question 12 
Section 4 - Monitor and Inspection, Article 11 - Monitor: After the publication were imported 
within seven days, individual, entity and organization that imported such publication shall 
notify its purpose of use including detailed utiliz ation plan for each period to Department of 
Publication, Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism. 
- Please explain how this provision complies wi th Article 2 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures which, inter alia , requires that automatic import licence 
applications be granted in all cases?    
- What is the purpose of the requirement that "the individual, entity and organization 
that imported such publication" notify th e Department of Publication, Ministry of 
Information, Culture and Tourism of its "use, including detailed utilization plan for each period"?  For what is the Ministry in specting and are domestic publications also 
required to produce such notification and utilization plan?  
- In light of this Article's seven days require ment, how is Lao PDR able to comply with 
Article 2.2(a)(iii) of the Import Licensing Agreement which requires that applications 
for automatic licenses be immediately approve d upon receipt to the extent that it is 
administratively feasible, but within a maximum of 10 working days?  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Answer: 
Note that the import licence is a prior requirement and thus is issued prior to the import of goods.  
The 7-day requirement is after the automatic issuan ce of import licence and after actual importation. 
The purpose of notification is for monitoring the use of such publications. As noted in the first paragraph of this response,  the seven-day requirement is after the automatic 
issuance of import licence and after actual importation. 
Question 13 
Article 11 - [sic] Inspection: Individual, entity and organization exercise the business related to 
the publication such as:  reading service, learning -teaching, distibution, etc., shall be under the 
monitor and inspection of the Department of Pub lication and shall be in compliance with the 
Law on Publishing and other related laws. 
- What are the requirements for domestic publications? 
Answer: 
The inspection requirements (review of content) for domestic publications are the same for the 
imported publications.  The content of public ations is governed by the Law No. 05/NA 
"On Publishing" of 9 December 2008. 
V. TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME 
Question 14 With respect to Lao PDR's response to Question 42 of document WT/ACC/LAO/36, we once 
again appreciate the effort that Lao PDR has invest ed into revising its Copyright Law to ensure 
that its Intellectual Property Law is consistent with WTO requirements and acknowledge 
Lao PDR's great efforts in responding to Members' questions on its Intellectual Property 
Regime.  As cited in your answer in WT/ACC/L AO/36 and in the updated TRIPS Action Plan 
(WT/ACC/LAO/15/Rev.6) Lao PDR intends to pr omulgate a Regulation "On Notification of 
Copyright and Related Rights" by October 2012.   
- Members will need to review these regulat ions to determine consistency with 
WTO requirements and we request that the documents be forwarded to the 
Working Party for review. 
- Also, in WT/ACC/LAO/7/Rev.2, the updated TR IPS Checklist, Article 109.5 is cited as 
satisfying Article 7 of the Berne Convention requirements for a minimum term of protection.  Please clarify this response as there is no numbered section 109.5 in the 2011 
Intellectual Property Law No. 1/NA of 20 December 2011. 
Based on information provided during the July  2012 Working Party meeting, we understand 
that Lao PDR authorities are preparing new intell ectual property regulations that may bear on 
some of the questions and comments conc erning the 2011 Intellectual Property Law.  
We request the opportunity to review and comm ent on the draft regulations prior to their 
taking effect.  When does Lao PDR expect th e draft regulation to be available for review? WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 10  
 
  Answer: 
Lao PDR is in the process of finalizing the regul ations implementing the 2011 IP Law, which are 
expected to be issued by September 2012. 
Lao PDR has shared the draft regulations with Members. This is a typographic error.  The checklist should ha ve read Article 109.4 instead of 109.5.  Lao PDR 
thanks the Member for pointing this out and will correct this. 
Question 15 
Whereas Article 109.4 of the 2011 Intellectual Prop erty Law specifies a term of protection for 
"applied art," it does not address "photographic works," a term referenced in Berne 7(4) and in the TRIPS action plan.  Does the Lao PDR IP law provide a term of protection for photographic 
works?  
Answer: 
 No special provision is made for the term of prot ection of photographic works, which therefore have 
the same term as other literary or artistic works as se t forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 109 of the 
Intellectual Property Law.  
Question 16 
We understand paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 109 of the 2011 Intellectual Property Law to 
provide a 50-year term for literary and artistic  works, and paragraph 4 to provide a 25-year 
term for applied art.  The explanation provide d by Lao PDR above indicates that photographic 
works fall under paragraphs 1 and 2, indicating a 50-year term of protection. 
Article 4.2 of the revised Copyright Regulation s provides:  "Pursuant to Article 7 of the 
Berne Convention, the term of protection of pho tographic works and works of applied art shall 
be as provided in Article 109 of the Intellectual Pr operty Law but in any event shall last at least 
until the end of a period of 25 years from the making of such a work." 
Because applied art and photographic works are addressed together in Berne Article 7(4), and 
together again in Article 4.2 of the revised Co pyright Regulations, and because there is an 
express mention of a 25 year minimum term in each, we believe the regulations could be 
misconstrued to require only a 25 year term for photographic works.  We believe that potential 
misunderstandings could be avoided with clarif ications in Article 4.2 of the Copyright 
Regulations.  (Note that the WIPO WCT provides for 50 years of protection of photographic 
works.) 
Answer: 
Lao PDR believes that the term of protection for phot ographic works is clear from Article 109 of the 
Intellectual Property Law.  However, to avoid possi ble misinterpretation, Lao PDR has made a further 
clarification in the draft Decision on Copyright and Related Rights.   WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Question 17 
As a follow-up to the Action Plan on the Le gislative Work and Implementation of the 
Agreement on TRIPS (WT/ACC/LAO/15/Rev.6 – 15 June 2012):  Could Lao PDR please provide a state of play of the legislation to be implemented as per the Action Plan? 
Answer: 
Lao PDR is in the process of finalizing the regul ations implementing the 2011 IP Law, which are 
expected to be issued by September 2012.  Lao PDR thanks Members for comments to improve the 
draft regulations elaborating the IP Law. 
Question 18 
On the 2011 Law on Intellectual Property:  Section I – General Provisions: Article 4 states that 
the State protects intellectual property which is not contrary to the "culture or fine traditions of 
the nation".  We recommend that Lao PDR clarify th at copyright protection is not to be denied 
to "prohibited" works?  See  TRIPS Article 9.1 and Berne Article 5(1).   
Please confirm that Article 4 of the 2011 Intellectual Property Law No. 1/NA of 
20 December 2011 does not deny copyright protections  to works based on "cultural" objections 
as doing so would violate Article 5(1) of the Berne Convention.   
Furthermore, could Lao PDR explain the intended meaning or effect of the term "sanitation" in 
this provision?  
Answer:  
Article 4 of the Intellectual Property Law is a statement of policy favoring the protection of 
intellectual property.  The phrase "culture or fine traditions of the nation" is a Lao legal expression 
that is equivalent to the international concept of ordre public , making the limitation consistent with 
limitations permissible under TRIPS Article 13.  The eligibility of copyright protection must be based 
on the operational provisions of the IP Law which ar e provided under its Article 88.  Items that are 
not eligible for copyright protection are liste d out in Article 90 of the 2011 IP Law.  
As per Article 90 of the 2011 IP Law, copyright protection is denied to the following items:  
1. news of the day or miscellaneous facts ha ving the character of mere items of press 
information; 
2. ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such; and 
3. official texts of a legislative, administrative a nd legal nature, and official translations of such 
texts. 
Except for the above-listed items, all works are eligib le for the copyright protection as per Article 88 
of IP Law. 
The term "sanitation" was translated from the Lao word which means health, as used in the 
TRIPS Agreement. 
The English version of the IP Law can be edited to reflect the more precise word in English. WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 12  
 
  Lao PDR agrees to further clarify that Article 4 of the 2011 Intellectual Property Law No. 1/NA of 
20 December 2011 does not deny copyright protec tions to works based on "cultural" objections. 
Question 19 
Will the clarification provided above that Article 4 does not deny copyright protections to works 
based on "cultural" objections be expressed in a regulation? 
 
Will regulations further define the meaning of "culture or fine traditions of the nation"? 
Answer: 
Yes, in line with the explanation previously provided. 
Question 20 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Section III - Industrial Property, Part 1 - 
Industrial Property Requirements, Article 16(3):  We recommend that the 2011 Intellectual Property Law be revised to clearly protect registered well-known marks against marks used in connection with dissimilar goods or services, where such use would indicate a connection to the 
owner of the registered trademark and would likely damage the owner's interest.  See TRIPS 
Article 16(3). 
Answer: 
Article 16.3 of the 2011 Intellectual Property Law creates grounds on which to refuse registration of a 
mark in view of a previously-registered or we ll-known mark, even where goods and services are not 
similar but are related.  This provision can be used  to prevent the registration of a mark that would 
falsely suggest a connection with a more senior mark.  The trademark owner can also use the unfair 
competition provisions of the Law to prevent, or obtain redress for, acts such as those described in 
TRIPS Article 16(3).  For example, Article 120.2 of the Intellectual Property Law defines as an act of unfair competition, and prohibits, "all acts of such  a nature as to create confusion by any means 
whatever with the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of a 
competitor".  We agree that it would be useful to clarify this point, however, and will do so in the 
regulations implementing the IP Law. 
Question 21 
We remain concerned that the language in Ar ticle 16.3 of the Trademark Law does not capture 
the provisions of TRIPS Article 16(3) for protection of registered well-known marks against uses in connection with dissimilar goods or services , where such use would indicate a connection 
to the owner and would likely damage the owner's interest.  Article 16.3 of the Trademark Law 
requires that the goods or services be "related" to  be refused.  Nevertheless, there could be 
circumstances in which a mark used for cert ain goods, such as use of the mark 
LAMBORGHINI for bowling balls, would indicate  a connection with a well-known mark used 
in connection with completely dissimilar and unrelated goods, such as LAMBORGHINI for 
cars.  Although this concept may be covered under unfair competition generally as noted by 
Lao PDR, we recommend that the language be clea rly stated in the Trademark Law.  We note 
that Lao PDR has indicated it will clarify this provision in the Implementing Regulations.  
Could Lao PDR please direct us to any clarification in the regulations or when new draft regulations can be expected?  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 13 
 
 
  We have the same concern with Article 135, the last sentence of which provides that a 
complainant asserting infringement of a trademark,  collective mark, or certification mark must 
show, among other things, "that the marks relate  to the same, similar, or related goods or 
services".  As noted above, such a showing would not be appropriate in the case of a registered well-known mark.  Could Lao PDR please indicate whether Article 135 is intended to apply to 
well-known marks?  And if it is not, does the law elsewhere specify the special evidence issues 
arising in connection with well-known marks? 
Answer: 
Lao PDR agrees to clarify this issue in the draf t Decision on Trademarks and Trade Names and will 
do so by defining "related" as used in the IP Law to  mean that use of the same mark would indicate a 
connection.  It will effectively tie the language of  the Intellectual Property Law to the language of 
TRIPS Article 16.3 and should therefore resolve this issue fully, particularly as the Lao PDR's approach is broader than strictly required by TRIPS Article 16.3.  With regard to Article 135 of the IP Law, the l ast paragraph relates to trademarks, regardless of 
whether the basis for protection is that the mark is registered or is well-known. 
Question 22 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  On Pa tents:  We believe that Article 63.1.4 when 
taken in conjunction with Article 63.9.2 means that demand in Lao PDR can be satisfied through importation as well.  Could Lao PDR please confirm? 
Answer: 
Lao PDR confirms. 
Question 23 
Can Lao PDR provide such confirmation through a revision of the regulations? 
Answer: 
This issue has been addressed in paragraph 9.2 of  the draft Decision on Patents and Petty Patents.  
(Note the language "whether by local manufacture or importation".) 
Question 24 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Part 3 - Obtaining Protection for Industrial 
Property:  Article 30 states that a patent applicat ion "shall be deemed to have been filed on the 
date on which the goods were first exhibited".  We recommend that the 2011 Intellectual Property Law be clarified to make clear that patent protection in Lao PDR does not end before 
the expiration of a period of 20 years counted from the filing date.  See  TRIPS Article 33. 
Answer: 
Article 48 states that the term of protection is 20 years from the filing date.  The intent of Article 30 
was to create an effective filing date.  Lao PDR will further clarify this point in the draft regulations 
implementing the IP Law. WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 14  
 
  Question 25 
Further to the concern expressed in this Memb er's question, Article 3 of the draft patent 
regulations defines the term "Effective Filing Date" in part as "the earlier of an application's 
actual filing date in Lao PDR; its priority date  or date of temporary protection based on the 
display of goods at an internationally recognized exhibition , as applicable . . . " (emphasis added).  
We would anticipate that Lao PDR will examine the definition when clarifying this aspect of the 
draft regulations.  We note additionally that Article 8.6 references a "filing date".  Does this 
constitute the date on which the patent term starts? 
Answer: 
Lao PDR has addressed this issue in each set of Regu lations where it appears by redefining "effective 
filing date"; inserting language limiting the applica tion of provisions on temporary protection to the 
context of examination or determina tion of novelty and inventive step; and by clarifying that the term 
is measured from the actual filing da te in Lao PDR.  The filing date in  paragraph 8.6 is considered to 
be the date from which term is measured. 
Question 26 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property", on Ge ographical Indications:  How is Article 25.6 
seen in relation to Article 23.3 of the TRIPS Agreement? 
Answer: 
Taken together with Article 59 of the Intelle ctual Property Law, Article 25.6 implements 
TRIPS Article 23.3 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
Article 59 of the 2011 Intellectual Property Law specifi es the rights of the owner of the registration of 
a geographical indication.  The final paragraph of th at article extends the basic rights of the owner – 
the right to prevent the use of the indication on go ods or in a trademark, and to prevent the sale, 
advertising, import or export of goods bearing th e indication – to homonymous indications, and for 
wines it also extends the higher level of protectio n of TRIPS Article 23.1 to include homonymous 
indications. 
 Lao PDR agrees to clarify this issue furthe r in a regulation implementing the IP Law. 
Question 27 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Part 3 - Obtaining Protection for Industrial 
Property:  Article 44 states that a third party may request an objection or a cancellation of a 
registered industrial design, tradem ark or geographical indication within a period of five years 
from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.  Since the grounds for objection or 
cancellation are not included in the draft law, a Member recommends that they be included in 
the law or an implementing measure, such as  an implementing decree.  The Member would 
appreciate the opportunity to assist Lao PDR in the drafting of such revision or implementing 
measure, and would be pleased to provide models  for consideration by Lao PDR.  The Member 
looks forward to working with Lao PDR on this issue and reviewing any draft that Lao PDR prepares.  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Answer: 
Lao PDR has taken this issue into account by sp ecifically addressing grounds for cancellation in the 
regulations implementing the IP Law. 
Question 28 
Lao PDR indicates that it will provide grounds fo r cancellation in the regulations implementing 
the IP Law.  Article 44 of the Trademark Law states that a third party may request an objection 
or a cancellation of a registered trademark or geographical indication (GI) within a period of 
five years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.  While Article 55(4) of the 
Trademark Regulations provides the grounds for ca ncellation of a trademark, the regulations 
do not appear to provide grounds for objectio n or cancellation of a GI.  We recommend 
including provisions that would allow an interested party to file a cancellation or objection to a 
GI on the grounds of likelihood of confusion wi th a prior registered trademark or unregistered 
well-known mark or on the grounds that the term is generic in Lao PDR. 
Answer: 
The IP Law provides for the objection or cancellati on of GIs only during the first five years after 
publication.  During that time, any person may brin g an action as you describe.  See Article 25.5 of 
the IP Law.  After that, GIs, which are not "own ed" by the parties entitled to use them and which do 
not have a fixed term, are subject to an order of su spension, for example, where the GI is misused or 
inadequately monitored or ceases to qualify as a ge ographical indication.  Objection and cancellation 
procedures for GIs are found in the draft Decision on Geographical Indications, Section VII. 
Question 29 
We note that there is no p re-registration opposition pro ceeding for either trademark or 
GI applications.  Could Lao PDR explain the rationale for not including a pre-registration opposition for GIs and trademarks? 
Answer
: 
Pre-registration opposition was considered but not ad opted for trademarks or geographical indications 
as a matter of administrative simplicity and ensuring prompt registration for the vast majority of 
marks.  Lao PDR reads TRIPS Article 15.5 as making such opposition optional (Members may 
provide….) and satisfy Paris Article 6 septies  by providing for post-registration objection or 
cancellation for a generous period of five years in all cases. 
Question 30 On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Part 3 - Obtaining Protection for Industrial 
Property:  Article 45(4) states that patents, pe tty patents, and industrial property registrations 
shall be terminated after the competent court fi nds that the Intellectual Property Right was not 
commercially exploited.  The Member is concerned about nega tive impacts arising from unduly 
narrow interpretations of the meaning of comm ercial exploitation, and therefore recommends 
that the 2011 Intellectual Property Law be clarified to specify that commercial exploitation also includes importation and sale. WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 16  
 
  Answer: 
The 2011 Intellectual Property Law provides for possible termination for non-use of a mark but does 
not provide for the termination of any other form of industrial property on the ground of non-working 
or non-use.  Paragraph 4 point therefore relates to non-use of a mark.  The purpose of this paragraph is 
to fix the timing of such termination so that it may only occur under the conditions set forth in the 
Law, including, e.g., after three years of consecu tive non-use, after an opportunity for the owner to 
show that the non-use was excusable, and in particul ar, only after the owner has had an opportunity to 
be heard in court.  The intent was to prevent an au tomatic lapse for non-use.  With regard to the issue 
of commercial exploitation and how that might be in terpreted, we will address this in the regulations. 
Question 31 
We appreciate the answer provided.  We remain concerned that Article 45(4) contains an 
explicit reference to "industrial property rights."   Article 9 defines "industrial property" to 
include not only trademarks, but also patents, pe tty patents, and industrial designs.  Despite the 
explanation provided by Lao PDR, a Court might nevertheless accept the argument that if the drafters of the law intended Article 45(4) to appl y only to trademarks, they would have used 
that term instead of the "industrial property," wh ich is defined more broadly.  We look forward 
to reviewing the draft implementing regulations  in respect to commercial exploitation and 
termination of rights. 
Answer: 
Lao PDR has clarified this Article in th e Decision on Trademarks and Trade Names. 
Question 32  
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  On Termination of Industrial Property Rights:  
Could Lao PDR please clarify in further detail Article 45.4 of this Law? 
Answer: 
Article 45.4 clarifies that rights do not terminate fo r failure to use a registered mark until there has 
been a final court decision adjudicating the issue.  Th is is intended to preven t an automatic lapse of 
rights and preserve the rights of the owner under Ar ticle 64 of the 2011 Intellectual Property Law, 
which provides for termination of rights for non-use of a registered mark. 
Although written in general terms, Article 45.4 is only applicable to trademarks since the 2011 
Intellectual Property Law does not provide for terminati on of rights for failure to work inventions or 
for failure to exploit any other form  of industrial property.  Where an invention or utility innovation is 
not sufficiently exploited, the exclusive remedy is provided by Article 63, which incorporates the 
provisions of TRIPS Article 31 on u se without authorization of the right holder, and there are no other 
comparable provisions for other forms of industrial property. 
Question 33 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Part 6 - Rights and Obligations of the Industrial 
Property Owner, Article 57:  Under the prior dra ft, Article 57(7) indicated that paragraphs 1-6 
shall apply mutatis mutandis  to well-known marks and to trade names without regard to 
whether they are registered.  In this latest rev ision, it appears that this specific provision 
relating to well-known marks and trade names has b een rearranged in such a way that it would  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 17 
 
 
  no longer apply to paragraphs 4-6 of Article 57 (i tems 1-3 in the third paragraph of the revised 
draft).   
We recommend that the 2011 Intellectual Property Law be clarified to specify that not only 
items 1-3 of the first paragraph and the second pa ragraph, but also items 1 and 2 of the third 
paragraph, will apply mutatis mutandis  to well-known marks and trade names without regard to 
whether they are registered.  
We also recommend reinserting the language from the previous draft's Article 57(1):  "The use 
of an identical sign for identical goods or services shall be presumed to create a likelihood of confusion".  (See TRIPS Article 16.1).  
Answer: 
Items 1-3 of the third paragraph as appear in Arti cle 57 do not exist in the Lao original version of 
2011 IP Law.  Article 57 should read as follows: 
"A trademark owner has the following rights: 
1. to prevent all third parties from using in the c ourse of trade identical or similar signs for 
goods or services which are identical, similar, or  related to those in respect of which the 
trademark is registered where such use woul d result in a likelihood of confusion; 
2. to prevent the sale or advertising of goods be aring the mark or the use of the mark in 
connection with services, and the  importation or export of goods bearing such a mark; 
3. to protect their rights under the law and regulations against infringements by others such 
as to institute court action, [and] right to  compensation from damages caused by others. 
 
The rights described in items 1 and 2 of this Article  shall not prejudice any existing prior rights.  
The rights described above shall apply mutatis mut andis to well-known marks and to trade names 
without regard to whether they are registered ." 
Question 34 
The English translation of the final 2011 IP law includes not only the language quoted above, 
but additional text immediately following in pa ragraphs numbered 1-3.  Please confirm whether 
the Lao original of the final 2011 IP la w contains these additional paragraphs. 
The second deleted paragraph provides that the owner of a registered trademark can file for 
infringement against a party that p erforms acts that make it likely that infringement will occur.  
If this provision does not actually appear in the law, is it included elsewhere? WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 18  
 
  Under Article 8(5) of the Trademark Regulation s, where an application is the same as a 
geographical indication (GI), rights shall be de termined with reference to where the "GI was 
protected in its country of origin and otherwise entitled to protection in Lao PDR at the effective filing date of the Lao application".  Could Lao PDR please clarify what is intended by "otherwise entitled to protection"?  Does this refer to consumer recognition of the GI in 
Lao PDR, such that use of the geographical i ndication would deceive or mislead purchasers as 
to the origin of the goods? 
Answer: 
Lao PDR confirms that the Lao original of the 2011 IP Law does not contain those additional 
paragraphs.  Note however that Article 117 of the IP Law defines violations of the Intellectual 
Property Law as well as acts that constitute excepti ons.  The language relating to preparation to 
infringe is not found elsewhere in the IP Law but is addressed in Article 13 of the 2005 Penal Law (an 
English translation consultation copy can be obtained vide Legislation Notice in document 
WT/ACC/LAO/44). 
"Otherwise entitled to protection" means that th e geographical indication satisfies other legal 
requirements for protection as set forth in the Intell ectual Property Law.  See in particular Articles 18 
and 25 as well as Articles 26-28 and 35.  Article 18 does not include consumer recognition of the GI 
in the Lao PDR .  However, use of a GI that indicat es or suggests that the good originates in a 
geographical area other than its true place of origin and in a manner that misleads the public as to the 
geographical origin of the good is an act of unfair competition pursuant to Article 59 of the 
Intellectual Property Law. 
Question 35 We are still concerned about the language of Article 8.5 of the Trademark Regulations.  
We recommend adding the following to clarify th at a trademark application would be refused 
on the basis of a GI that is protected in Lao P DR, not only in the country of origin:  "otherwise 
entitled to protection at the effective filing date of  the Lao application, because it is registered or 
meets the requirements of the law and is perceived as a GI by the relevant sector in Lao PDR". 
Answer: 
Lao PDR has amended the Decision on Trademarks and Trade Names to incorporate these concepts. 
Question 36 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Part 6 - Rights and Obligations of the Industrial 
Property Owner, Article 62 enumerates a number of obligations on the Intellectual Property 
Rights owner.  We request that Lao PDR explain to it what the consequences for failing to comply with such obligations would be, and which agencies or authorities would determine when such failures occurred.  Furthermore, it is not clear how an Intellectual Property Rights 
owner is expected to comply with the obligations in items (2) and (5).   
Answer: 
Article 62 of the 2011 Intellectual Property Law si mply details the areas in which it is the 
responsibility of the owner, rather than the government , to take certain actions.  Item 2 refers to, for 
example, commercializing an invention.  Item 5 refers  to recourse to courts when there are violations 
of industrial property.  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 19 
 
 
  In further detail, items 1, 3, and 5 address the n eed for the industrial property owner to enforce its 
rights by monitoring possible infringing uses, repor ting violations, and being involved in formulating 
a remedy.  Item 2 provides that it is up to the industrial property owner to promote the use of the industrial property, for example, to commercialize an invention.  Item 4 obligates the owner to pay any applicable fees or taxes.   
Industrial property owners who do not comply with items 1, 2, 3, and 5 may not receive significant 
benefit from their industrial property.  This is a practical consequence, a nd there is no agency or 
authority that is responsible for ensuring that an intellectual property owner exploits its industrial 
property or reports violations.  Under certain ci rcumstances, such failures could result in the 
cancellation of a mark for non-use or the grant of a non-voluntary licence for failure to satisfy the 
domestic market, provided, of course, that othe r requirements for a non-voluntary licence are met.  
Where the Law provides for cancellation, suspen sion, or a non-voluntary licence, the relevant 
agencies and authorities are the Intellectual Property Department and the courts. 
An industrial property owner complies with the ob ligation of item (2) by, for example, using a 
patented process in its business or making and se lling an item embodying an industrial design.  
It might promote the use of its industrial property by advertising its products or by entering into 
business arrangements to enable ot hers to exploit the property. 
An industrial property owner complies with the ob ligation of item (5) by, for example, negotiating 
favorable terms to settle a dispute or by provid ing the court in an infringement proceeding with 
information and filing the necessary demands to enable the court to craft an appropriate order such as 
an injunction or order requiring an accounting of the defendant's profits. 
Question 37  
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property", On co pyright:  Article 88, could Lao PDR please 
clarify what is meant by "tangible medium" and how Lao PDR sees this in relation to websites and online content? 
Answer: 
The term "tangible medium" relates to the requireme nt of fixation.  The re gulations implementing the 
IP Law will further define and explain, with ex amples, what is, and is not, a tangible medium. 
 Applying this regulation to websites and online content,  material is not "fixed" so long as it is merely 
present on the computer screen of the person who is  preparing the material, but once it is stored, 
whether on a local computer, on a portable medium, or on a server that will host the website or other 
online content, it is fixed in a tangible medium and entitled to protection.  A subsequent article of the 
draft regulations makes clear that a work may be entitled to protection even if it is incomplete or 
subsequently modified, so even a work that is be ing composed online would be protected so long as 
the author periodically stores the work.  Lao PDR be lieves this approach is sufficiently flexible to 
apply to other electronic devices used to create we b pages and other online content, such as digital 
cameras, mobile telephones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), and the like. 
Question 38 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Sect ion V - Copyright and Related Rights, Part 3 
- Notification of Copyright or Related Rights, Article 93 states that the described notification 
can be recorded "for evidence…".  To avoid any confusion that this provision may be necessary 
to provide evidence of subsistence or ownersh ip of copyright, we recommend that the 2011 WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 20  
 
  Intellectual Property Law be revised to make clear that this notification may provide additional 
evidence.  See TRIPS Article 9.1 and Berne Article 5(2). 
Answer: 
Please note that Article 93 provides that "Copyright  or related rights are the rights which arise 
immediately when the work is created without regist ration requirement, but a notification of rights can 
be recorded with the Ministry of Science and Tec hnology for evidence or for record especially in case 
of violation or dispute."  (emphasis added)  Lao PDR believes this is consistent with 
Berne Article 5(2).  Further, the current draft regulations implementing the IP Law include the 
following two provisions, which address these points and which Lao PDR believes make it clear that 
the recordation of a notification is no t a formality required for protection: 
A work is eligible for copyright protection from the time it is created.  
Recordation of a notification of copyright or rela ted rights is not required to establish ownership.  
Such recordation is evidence that the person named in the certificate claimed rights as stated in the 
certificate for the work, performance, phonogram, or broa dcast stated in the notification on the date of 
recordation.  Such evidence may be taken into  account by a court or other body in making a 
determination of rights and in particular may be u seful in cases of competing or disputed claims of 
ownership or other rights. 
Question 39 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Sect ion V - Copyright and Related Rights, Part 4 
- Copyright Owners, Article 95(1):  We recommend that Lao PDR revise the 2011 Intellectual Property Law to define "joint work". 
Answer: 
Lao PDR will define joint works in the regula tion, and welcomes suggestions on the text. 
Question 40 
For Lao PDR's consideration, the Member noted that its law defines joint ownership as:  
"A joint work is a work prepared by two or  more authors with the intention that their 
contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of the unitary whole." 
Answer: 
Thank you.  Lao PDR has adapted this definiti on in the draft Decision on Copyright and Related 
Rights. 
Question 41 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Sect ion V - Copyright and Related Rights, Part 4 
- Copyright Owners, Article 101 - We recommen d that Lao PDR revise the 2011 Intellectual 
Property Law to define the term "traditional liter ary or artistic work" and specify clearly what 
types of works fall within this term.   WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Answer: 
Lao PDR will incorporate a definition into the regul ations.  Please note that Article 101 is included in 
the 2011 Intellectual Property Law to clarify how copy right relates to traditional works such as folk 
tales and folk dances, not to carve out a separate type of protection. 
Question 42 
We look forward to reviewing new draft regulations incorporating such a definition. Answer: 
Lao PDR has incorporated such definition in th e draft Decision on Copyright and Related Rights. 
Question 43 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Sect ion V - Copyright and Related Rights, Part 4 
- Copyright Owners, Article 111 - We request th at Article 111 of the 2011 Intellectual Property 
Law No. 1/NA of 20 December 2011 be revised to be consistent with Article 10 bis(1) of the 
Berne Convention with regard to the reservatio n of rights for reproduction, broadcasts and 
communication of articles published in newspapers or periodicals.  We recommend that Lao PDR revise the 2011 Intellectual Property Law to  make clear that all of the limitations or 
exceptions to copyright enumerated in this provisi on shall comply with the "three-step test" of 
TRIPS Article 13. 
Answer: 
Lao PDR has no objection to including such a provision in the regulations. 
Question 44 
Article 22(1) of the draft copyright regulatio ns appears to collapse the concepts of the 
exceptions specific to quotations and teaching ("compatible with fair practice") under 
Berne 10(1)-(2) and the more general three-step test of Berne 9(2) and TRIPS 13.  One potential approach to address this issue would involve removal of the following sentence:  "Those articles 
implement provisions of Article 10 of the Berne Convention, which permits copying or other acts of exploitation that are 'c ompatible with fair practice'". 
Answer: 
Lao PDR has inserted in the draft Decision on Copyri ght and Related Rights la nguage relative to the 
reservation of rights as well as additional language to ensure that all three prongs of TRIPS Article 13 
are met. 
Question 45 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property":  Sect ion V - Copyright and Related Rights, Part 4 
- Copyright Owners, Article 111.3(1-2) - We recommend that Lao PDR revises the 2011 
Intellectual Property Law to make clear that "the reproduction, broadcasting or such communication thereof is not expressly reserved" app lies to both item 1 as well 2, rather than 
just item 2.  See Berne Article 10 bis(1).  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 22  
 
  Answer: 
Lao PDR agrees, and will include a clarification in the regulations that items 1 and 2 must be read 
jointly. 
Question 46 
On the 2011 Law "On Intellectual Property", on  Plant Variety Protection:  Could Lao PDR 
please inform whether it would consid er signing up to the UPOV Convention? 
Answer:  
Lao PDR is still considering the possibility to join this convention.  However, note that the IP Law 
substantially covers the provisions of UPOV Conve ntion and provides for the protection of plant 
varieties. 
- Sources of Law  
Question 47 Is the Ministry of Finance Instruction on Cust oms Measures for the Protection of Intellectual 
Property Rights, No. 1970/MOF, dated 8 September 2011, still in effect?  It was made pursuant to, in part, versions of the Customs Law and Intellectual Property Law that were superseded 
in 2011. 
Answer: 
Please be informed that the Instruction is part  of the implementation of the Customs Law and 
Intellectual Property Law with respect to duties of the Customs Administration on the protection of IP 
rights in compliance with TRIPS Agreement.  Such duties are made clearer in the revised 
Customs Law and Intellectual Property Law (in 2011). 
The last sentence of these two laws stipulates that "r egulations and provisions that contradict the Law 
shall be abolished".  After our veri fication, none of the provisions of the Instruction contradicts with 
either the Customs Law or Intellectual Property Law.  Therefore, the Instruction is not to be abolished 
and is still in effect. 
The following explanation would help understand bette r how Lao PDR's legislation system works.  
Lao PDR's laws are adopted by its legislative br anch, the National Assemb ly.  These laws mostly 
provide general principles and dele gate the detailed implementation to  relevant government agencies 
of the executive branch (ministries).   In this way, Lao PDR's Customs Law and Intellectual Property 
Law delegate in the Ministry of Finance the aut hority to issue detailed regulations on IP border 
measures, given that Customs Administration falls under the Ministry of Finance.  As part of 
Lao PDR's WTO compliance work, IP border measure s have been drafted in conformity with 
Section 4 of the TRIPS Agreement.  The current  IP border measures are under the Instruction on 
Customs Measures for the Protection of Inte llectual Property Rights, No. 1970/MOF, dated 
8 September 2011. 
Question 48 
Assuming the MOF Instruction is  still in effect, does it alte r or narrow the 2011 Customs Law 
and 2011 Intellectual Property law?  For exam ple, the MOF Instruction applies only to 
counterfeit trademark goods and pirated copyrigh t goods (Article 3).  Does it, for example,  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 23 
 
 
  narrow the remedies and rights set out in the Inte llectual Property law, which are not limited to 
counterfeit trademark goods and pirated copyright goods?   
Answer: 
The MOF Instruction does not alter or narrow the 2011 Customs Law or the 2011 Intellectual 
Property Law.  As explained in Question 47, th ese two laws grant the Ministry of Finance the 
authority to issue a regulation implementing the IP border measures, which has been reflected in the 
MOF Instruction No. 1970/MOF, dated 8 September 2011. 
The Instruction implements IP border measures in line with Section 4 (Special Requirements Related 
to Border Measures) of the TRIPS Agreement, wh ich requires Members to apply border measures to 
"counterfeit trademark goods" and "pirated copyright goods". 
Question 49 Articles 32 and 33 of the 2011 Customs law appe ar to express the requirements of TRIPS to 
enable a right holder to apply for suspension by  the customs authority of the release into free 
circulation certain goods.  Is a draft of the impl ementing regulations referred to in Article 33 
available for our review?   
Answer: 
Please be informed that Article 33 of the 2011 Custom s Law is the specific delegation of power by the 
legislative branch to the Ministry of Finance to issu e a regulation.  Such delegation also exists but in 
more general terms in the previous Customs Law with  respect to the duties of the Ministry of Finance 
to issue regulations on customs-relate d matters.  At the current stage a nd by virtue of such delegation, 
the MOF has issued the Instruction on Customs Me asures for the Protection of Intellectual Property 
Rights, No. 1970/MOF, dated 8 September 2011, wh ich was submitted previously for review.  
Question 50 
Further with respect to the implementing regulations  referred to in Article 33, we observe that 
Section III of the Ministry of Finance "Instruction on Customs Measures for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights", No. 1970/MOF, 8 September 2011, appears to provide greater 
detail in respect to such an application.  Ho wever, Article 3 of the MOF Instruction provides 
that it applies only to "counterfeit trademark goods and pirated copyright goods".  It therefore appears that the MOF Instruction does not a pply in the case of non-counterfeit trademark 
infringement.  Is this a correct understanding?  
Answer: 
Yes.  As mentioned above, the Instruction impl ements IP border measures in line with Section 4 
(Special Requirements Related to Border Measur es) of TRIPS Agreement which requires Members to 
apply border measures to "counterfeit tradem ark goods" and "pirated copyright goods".  
- Enforcement and Border Measures 
Question 51 Ex Officio  Authority and Article 153.  Does Articl e 153 of the Intellectual Property Law give 
customs officers and other officers assigned to border checkpoints ex officio  seizure authority 
("seize and impound")?  Such authority seems imp licit in Articles 79(2) (rights of customs WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 24  
 
  authorities) and 96 (requiring seizure reports) of the 2011 Customs Law.  On the other hand, 
Article 3(9) of the 2011 Customs Law seems to define "seizure of goods" in a way that suggests that the act is actually the detention  of such goods rather than seizure .  Please clarify how the 
Intellectual Property and Customs Law work together in this respect.  In addition, please clarify 
whether the law establishes evidential st andard for detention and/or seizure. 
Answer: 
Article 153 of the Intellectual Property Law au thorizes action by customs and other officers 
"in accordance with laws and regulations".  Article 153 is broad enough to permit ex officio  action if 
authorized by regulations, but the Intellectual Pr operty Law itself does not directly grant that 
authority.  With its current capacity, the Ministry  of Finance has opted to only implement IP border 
measures within the requirements under Section 4 of the TRIPS Agreement. 
Please note that under the Customs Law and Intellect ual Property Law, customs officers may seize 
only goods that infringe intellectual property rights.  However the law does not grant the right to customs officers, but to the judicial authority to decide on whether there has been an infringement or 
not.  So the customs officers may seize infringing goods only after a court order.  
The term: "seizure" in the customs context and as defined by the Customs Law refers to temporary 
detention (and not confiscation) of goods in waiting for a court trial.  This applies to other cases 
relating to violation of Customs Law.  Only Article 32 and 33 of Customs Law apply specifically to IP-related matters and are implemented through In struction on Customs Measures for the Protection 
of Intellectual Property Rights, No. 1970/MOF, dated 8 September 2011.  
Question 52 
We appreciate the clarification, but must emphasize that it is critical that Lao PDR Customs 
officials have the ability to take actions ex officio  against suspected imports, exports, and 
transshipments of pirated or counterfeit goods.  Ex officio  authority is important because 
having Customs officials take action on thei r own initiative without waiting for formal 
intervention by rights holders makes border  enforcement more efficient and robust.  
The TRIPS Agreement recognizes the importance of this authority by providing procedures for 
ex officio  action in Article 58.  We consistently place very high importance on this issue with our 
trading partners and urge Lao PDR to incorp orate this critical feature into its laws. 
Answer: 
Intellectual property border measures are a new and complex responsibility for the Customs 
Authority.  Lao PDR understands the TRIPS Agreement does not require the grant of ex officio  
authority. 
- Civil Remedies Available to Intellectual Property Rights Holders 
Question 53 Can the owner of a registered well-known mark bring an infringement suit against 
dissimilar/unrelated goods under Article 117?   WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 25 
 
 
  Answer: 
See the response to Question 20 with regard to the is sue of unrelated marks.  With regard to whether 
the owner of a well-known mark can bring an infring ement suit, the rights are the same as for the 
owner of a registered mark, as provided in IP Law Article 16, final sentence. 
Question 54 
Do Articles 121 and 122 make it a violation to re-export trademark counterfeit goods and 
pirated copyright goods?   
Answer: 
Yes.  Note that the term: "export" also covers re -export.  For details of IP border measures, please 
refer to Instruction on Customs Measures for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, 
No. 1970/MOF, dated 8 September 2011. 
Question 55 
Thank you for the clarification as to "re-expo rts".  Please explain whether the Intellectual 
Property Law (including but not necessarily limit ed to Articles 121, 122, and 153), the Customs 
Law, and the Instruction on Customs Measures for the Protection of Intellectual Property 
Rights, No. 1970/MOF and others apply to "transshipments". 
Answer: 
Articles 121, 122, and 153 of the Intellectual Prope rty Law do not specifically address transshipments 
or define the terms import  and export  to include or exclude transshipments.  However, Article 32 of 
the Customs Law clearly addresses transshipments. 
Question 56 
Articles 123-131 of the Intellectual Property law address various forms of dispute resolution.  
Under these provisions, what happens if the parti es disagree on the form of dispute resolution?  
Does an intellectual property right holder have the ri ght to initiate a judicial action even if the 
other party or parties prefer to pursue a diff erent form of dispute resolution?  Are these 
questions addressed elsewhere in Lao law?   
Answer:  
As stated in Article 124 of the IP Law, the pa rties may choose the form of dispute resolution.  
All forms of dispute resolution except for judicial  action are optional and based on mutual agreement 
of the parties.  The Civil Procedure Law and Crimin al Procedure Law do not require that a party try to 
resolve the dispute by any other means before filing a lawsuit.  As a practical matter, most forms of 
alternative dispute resolution do, in fact, require ag reement by both parties.  If the parties are unable 
to agree on an approach, the IP owner alwa ys has the option of proceeding to court. 
- Criminal Procedures 
Question 57 Article 145 of the Intellectual Property Law makes it a criminal offense of the intellectual 
property law to "intentionally violate" certain articles of the law "for a commercial purpose".  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 26  
 
  Are the terms "intentionally violate" and "for a commercial purpose" defined in the 
Intellectual Property law or elsewhere?   
Answer:  
While not defined in the IP Law, Intentional offe nces are defined in the 2005 Penal Law.  Commercial 
purpose is not defined but will be addressed in the Regulations.  As per Article 9 of the 2005 Penal 
Law, intentional offences are voluntary acts or absten tions of the offender, which are undertaken with 
full knowledge of their dangerous nature  for society and their consequences.  
Question 58 
Article 145 at (2) defines it as a criminal o ffense to intentionally violate certain Articles, 
including Articles 121 and 122, "where such violatio n results in harm to the health of a person, 
damage to the environment, or damage to proper ty."  At (3), however, Article 145 makes it a 
criminal offense to "intentionally violat[e] Article 121 and/or 122 of the Law," without the additional requirement to demonstrate harm to the health of a person, damage to the 
environment, or damage property.  Does Article 145 therefore mean that such harm or damage 
is not a required element of a criminal offense brought under Articles 121 and 122?   
Answer:  
Yes.  Lao PDR's approach is to provide civil reme dies for all intellectual property violations and to 
make it criminal to undertake three types of infri ngement: 1) intentional violations for a commercial 
purpose, 2) violations that cause damage, and 3) in tentional violations of Articles 121 and 122.  
Articles 121 and 122 refer to trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy, and violation of those 
articles is a criminal offense regardless of whether damage or commercial purpose can be 
demonstrated.  Intent is included as an element because of general provisi ons of Lao Penal Law. 
- Questions concerning the Draft Regula tions on Patents and Petty Patents 
Question 59 Article 3 – definition of "Enabling disclosure":  The definition refers in part to "the 
presentation of technical information ... to enable another person of ordinary skill in the art ... 
to put the invention or utility into practice without additional  research or experimentation". 
(emphasis added).  We would recommend use of the term "undue" instead of "additional".  
A disclosure may be enabling without having to describe all steps or detailed methods if those 
are well known.  "Additional" experimentation may be contemplated and performed by one of ordinary skill in the art. 
Answer:  
The term "undue" is difficult to define in a precise manner and would be difficult to implement in the 
Lao context, which is a Civil Code system.  Ho wever, Lao PDR is addressing the issue of "new 
technical information" so as to exclude information that is inherent, and we will adopt certain foreign 
examination reports without review ing the examiner's determination that a disclosure is enabling. 
Question 60 
Article 12 – Amendment During Examination:  The draft regulation allows that an applicant 
may amend an application, "provided such amendment does not introduce technical information 
not included in the disclosure, including drawings,  of the application as filed".  We note that new  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 27 
 
 
  technical information may be necessary to clarif y or explain the claimed invention submitted in 
the original filing.  We would recommend amending  the draft regulation to read "new technical 
information beyond the scope of the invention or  utility innovation described or shown in the 
specification". 
Answer:  
Applicants have the ability to introduce new informa tion to explain and clarify but in the context of 
amending the application itself, new technical information can only be introduced where it is inherent. 
Question 61 
Article 24 – Temporary Protection at Certain International Exhibitions:  Please clarify if the 
"application" referenced in the second sentence of Article 24.1 is a patent  application.  
In Article 24.2, does "application" refer to a patent application or a request for temporary 
protection?  Is the meaning of the regulation that a patent applicant must file for a temporary protection within three months after filing a pa tent application (Article 24.1) and within 
six months of the international display date (Art icle 24.2)?  Also, please clarify if temporary 
protection must be granted before priority can be claimed to the date of display, or claiming 
priority and requesting temporary protection a re in the same process.  For example, can 
a temporary protection be granted without a patent application filed?  Under Article 24.4, what 
is the effect of temporary protection?  
Answer:  
Yes, the applications mentioned in Article 24.1 and 24.2 both refer to a patent application.  Lao PDR 
has clarified both in the revised draft Decision on Patents and Petty Patterns. 
Yes, that is the meaning of the regulation/decision. 
Although Paris Article 11 provides for temporary protection, it does not specify the form that 
protection will take.  Lao PDR has adopted the appro ach of granting a right of priority based on the 
international exhibition.  There is no provision made  for claiming the benefit of temporary protection 
apart from the filing of a patent application.   
Question 62 Article 42.1 provides as follows:   
Except as provided in paragraph 2 of this article, where the relevant requirements for 
protection are satisfied, the Department w ill record the relevant information in the 
government official industrial property offici al gazette and publish such information. 
 
What is included in "relevant information" to be published?  Will the whole application 
(excluding lengthy materials) be published? 
Answer: 
This has not yet been determined.  However, La o PDR anticipates initially publishing bibliographic 
information and at least the abstract of a patent or petty patent. WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 28  
 
  Question 63 
Article 42.3 provides as follows: 
An applicant may, subject to paying the a pplicable fees, request earlier publication of 
the application. 
Is the regular publication done at 18 months from filing date? 
Answer: 
Yes, publication occurs at the end of 18 months.  See Article 39 of the Intellectual Property Law 
which provides for publication in the nineteenth month. 
Question 64 
Article 47 – Provisional Protection:  The second sentences of Articles 47.1 and 47.2 reference the 
"rights" of other persons to practice the pend ing invention.  This articulation could be 
misinterpreted by the courts to grant affirmativ e rights to other persons during the provisional 
period.  More accurately, such other persons may be said to be at risk of being liable for 
equitable remuneration.  We suggest composing the regulation without reference to the term 
"rights" of other persons. 
Answer: 
Lao PDR believes this is a misreading of these articles,  which refer to the "exercise of rights", that is, 
the rights conferred by the patent or petty patent , and do not refer to righ ts of other persons.  
However, we have introduced clarifying language to  ensure that the provisions are not misinterpreted 
by the courts. 
Question 65 
Article 48 – Invalidity and Cancellation:  The la st sentence of Article 48.9 indicates that the 
Department shall take certain actions "[u]po n communication of such decision to the 
Department ..."   Please indica te if such communication must be performed by the court, 
the patent owner, or the prevailing party? 
Answer: 
Any communication that is adequately verified woul d be acceptable, e.g., by the Court itself, or by a 
party who provides a copy of the decision that can be  determined to be authentic.  Lao PDR has also 
added a new paragraph requiring a part y who puts the validity of a patent or petty patent into issue to 
notify the Department and provide a copy of the decision.  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Question 66 
Article 49 – Procedures for Cancellation:  Wherea s Article 48 contemplates filing a complaint in 
Court, Article 49 seems to reference an admi nistrative cancellation procedure in the 
Department.  If there are two options to seek cance llation of a patent or claim, is the Article 49 
process a pre-requisite to proceeding under Articles 48 and 50?  Would it provide clarification 
to rename Article 49 "Request for Re-Examination (Cancellation) Procedure"?  
Answer: 
Article 48 discusses procedures for cancellation through th e courts and provides that this is the sole 
basis for cancellation of a patent or petty pate nt except where an administrative cancellation is 
brought by the Department pursuant to Article 49 on the basis of false and misleading statements.  
Neither is a prerequisite for the other. 
Question 67 
Article 49.1:  Article 49.1 refers to an "application".  To distinguish from a "patent 
application", we suggest considering use of te rms such as "request for re-examination or 
request for cancellation". 
Answer: 
Lao PDR will take it under considera tion.  In Lao, the terms for request and application are a single 
word.  We have also amended the definition of "applicant" to address this possible confusion. 
Question 68 
Articles 48-50 – use of term "applicant":  Article 3 defines the term "Applicant" as "a person, 
group of persons, or legal entity that has applie d to obtain a patent or petty patent, or such 
person's successor in interest".  However, that definition seems inapplicable as the term 
"applicant" appears on Articles 48-50.  Would an alternative term such as "person requesting 
cancellation" provide clarity?  
Answer: 
See above response. 
Question 69 Article 50 – Inter Partes  Procedures for Cancellation:  If Article 49 is renamed as indicated 
above, should Article 50 be renamed " Inter Partes  Procedures for Re-Examination"?   
Article 50.1 makes references to "an application".  Does this mean a request for cancellation of 
a patent by an interested party or relevant party who has standing?  Does the reference in Article 50.1 to "a committee to hear inter partes  matters" indicate that the requester could seek 
relief other than cancellation?   The first sentence of Article 50.2 references "granting the 
application".  To avoid the inference that the t erm could mean granting the patent, we suggest 
an alternative formulation such as "grantin g the request for re-examination".  There is 
currently no Article 50.7.  Article 50.8 indicates that the Department may not approve a compromise and settlement such as where it wo uld result in a licence having a monopolistic 
effect.  Does that language indicate that Articl e 50 is not restricted to cancellation proceedings, 
but might apply to questions of infringement? WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 30  
 
  Answer: 
The Law provides for cancellation, not re-examination, although in some circumstances the results 
may be the same. 
- Questions concerning the Draft Regulations on Industrial Designs 
Question 70 
Article 11.2:  Please clarify under what conditions and situation may the department extend the 
time for complying with Article 11, and for how long will it extend the time?    
Answer: 
This is not yet determined.  This provision is b asically a safety valve that we do not expect to use 
often but want to include to allow the Departme nt to avoid abandoning an application where the 
applicant does not comply in a timely manner fo r reasons beyond the applicant's control.  
Question 71 
Article 14:  What is the nature of an objection brought before the Department?  How is it 
different from a cancellation proceeding? 
Answer: 
An objection is any request to modify the registra tion.  A cancellation is a request to cancel the 
registration in whole or in part.  Either proceedi ng may be brought before the Department, that is, 
administratively, within five years of publication.   However, a cancellation proceeding can be filed 
with the Court at any time during the term of th e industrial design registration or may be raised 
thereafter during any proceeding relating to the en forcement of rights under the industrial design.  
Question 72 
Article 20.10 provides as follows: 
The periods of priority shall be six months for industrial designs, beginning from the 
filing date of the application on which priori ty is based but excluding the filing date of 
such application and ending on the date that is six months or one year later, as 
applicable.  Where the last day of the priority period is an official holiday or a day when 
the department is not open the period sha ll be extended until the first following working 
day. (emphasis added) 
Please explain when a one year priority claim can be applicable in an industrial design 
application.  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 31 
 
 
  Answer:  
Lao PDR notes Member's comments and that language has been deleted in the draft Decision on 
Industrial Designs. 
Question 73 
Article 20.11 provides as follows: 
It is permissible to claim priority for a pate nt application on the basis of an application 
for a petty patent, and the reverse, and to clai m priority for an industrial design on the 
basis of an application for a patent, petty  patent, or utility model, and the reverse, 
provided however that the such applications  will nevertheless need to comply with 
requirements for the applicable form of intellectual property that is the subject of the 
Lao application. 
Is a "utility model" the same as a "utility inno vation" which is protected by a petty patent? 
Answer: 
Yes.  The term "utility model" is drawn from inte rnational practice.  Lao Intellectual Property Law 
adopts the term "utility innovation," which is prot ected by a petty patent.  This provision also 
mentions utility models which are required to be addressed pursuant to the Paris Convention. 
Furthermore, in light of the responses and action plan on TRIPS, Lao PDR proposes the following 
commitment language:  
xx. The representative of Lao PDR requested th at the Working Party grant a transitional 
period to 31 December 2016 to address those issues identified in its Action Plan and to obtain technical assistance and provide the administrati on the time to implement fully the obligations 
of the TRIPS Agreement.  The representative of  Lao PDR confirmed that  if a transition period 
was granted for those aspects of the WTO Agr eement on TRIPS identified in the Action Plan, 
his Government was prepared to undertake the following commitments.  No later than the 
date of accession, Lao PDR would fully apply Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Agreement that 
provide for, inter alia , national treatment and MFN treatment under current legislation in 
place as well as any other IPR-related measures that were not part of the Action Plan.  
Lao PDR would also ensure that any change ma de in its laws and regulations during this 
period would not result in a lesser degree of  consistency with the provisions of the 
TRIPS Agreement than existed on the date of accession. 
yy. The representative of Lao PDR further confir med that, if a transition was granted, his 
Government would ensure that, from the date of accession, existing rates of infringement 
would not significantly increase and that any infringement of intellectual property rights 
would be addressed immediately using existing enforcement provisions and remedies and in 
cooperation with affected right holders.  The representative of Lao PDR confirmed that draft 
regulations implementing the Intellectual Prope rty Law, which Lao PDR had shared with 
Members, would be finalized and issued by the date of accession.  The draft implementing 
regulations, which had been shared with Memb ers, would be adopted  without substantial 
amendment.  The representative of Lao PDR confirmed his understanding that issuance of the implementing regulations was necessary to implement at least Articles 9.1, 13, 16.1, 16.3, 23.3, 31 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement.  He fu rther confirmed that if a transition period was 
granted, Lao PDR, would no later than the end of  that transition period, authorize consistent 
with Article 58 of the TRIPS Agreement comp etent authorities to act upon their own initiative WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 32  
 
  and to suspend the release of goods in respect of which they had acquired prima facie  
evidence that an intellectual property right is  being infringed by counterfeit trademark goods 
or pirated copyright goods.  He added that Lao PDR would need substantial  technical 
assistance to achieve this.  He stated that Lao PDR would seek out all available technical 
assistance to ensure that it would have the capac ity to enforce fully a TRIPS-consistent legal 
regime upon expiration of the transition peri od.  He added that Lao PDR would make 
available all legislation and regulations in prom ulgated form to the WTO Secretariat so that 
interested WTO Members could confirm the consistency of those measures with the 
TRIPS Agreement.  In response to requests from delegations for more specificity, the 
representative of Lao PDR presented an action plan setting-out details of the steps that still 
remained to be taken in order to achieve this objective and a timetable for each step 
(Table [xx]). 
Table [xx].  Action Plan for the Implementation of the Agreement on 
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 
Agreement on Trade 
Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property 
Rights Laws/Actions Implementation 
Timeframe Remarks 
Others Authorize ex officio  action in 
compliance with TRIPS Article 58  
Intellectual Property Law 
Customs Law Ministry of Finance Instructions 
 
  
Enhance public awareness on the 
protection of intellectual property rights. 
 
 
Upgrade computerization of 
MOST.  
 
 Trainings for user s (development 
of information brochure and 
training programme).  
 
Trainings on copyrights, industrial property and plant variety 
protection for enforcement 
authorities such as customs officials, trade inspectors, 
policemen, judges, prosecutors and 
lawyers. 2012 to 2016 
  
 
  
 
  
2012 to 2016 
  
 
 
2012 to 2016 
  
 
 2012 to 2016 
 
  
 
2012 to 2016 Technical assistance and 
capacity building sought  
 
  
 
  
TA sought and received 
from ACWL, EU, JPO, SIDA, USAID and 
WIPO. 
 
TA sought and received 
from ACWL, EU, JPO, SIDA, USAID and 
WIPO. 
 TA sought and received 
from ACWL, EU, JPO, 
SIDA, USAID and WIPO. 
 
TA sought and received from ACWL, EU, JPO, 
SIDA, USAID and 
WIPO.  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 33 
 
 
  Agreement on Trade 
Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property 
Rights Laws/Actions Implementation 
Timeframe Remarks 
 Full implementation of the 
Agreement on Trade-Related 
Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights (except with respect to 
patents and undisclosed information of pharmaceutical 
products covered by the Doha 
Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health). 31 December 2016  
 
zz. The representative of Lao PDR confir med that Lao PDR would apply fully the 
TRIPS Agreement no later than 31 Decemb er 2016 with the understanding that the 
protections for intellectual property rights as pr ovided for in paragraphs xx and yy would be 
applied by Lao PDR by the dates specified in those paragraphs.  The representative of 
Lao PDR also confirmed that Lao PDR would ava il itself of special and differential treatment 
for Least-Developed Countries under the TRIPS Agreement and various Ministerial 
Conference Declarations including the Hong K ong Ministerial Declaration (paragraph 47), 
TRIPs Council Decision (IP/C/40), and the Eighth Ministerial Conference Decisions.  The Working Party took no te of these commitments.  
VI. POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN SERVICES 
Question 74 We are concerned with the burdensome requirements that the Regulation on the Establishment 
of International Letter Post Items and Postal Parcel Enterprise, No. 1288/PTC, dated 
25 June 2012, places on couriers providing serv ices for international letters and parcel post 
items.  The burdens placed on couriers through th is regulation appear to be inconsistent with 
Lao PDR's commitment to open the courier servi ces sector.  Further, such restrictions send a 
negative signal to investors.  We request the following clarifications: 
- With respect to Article 5, under what circumstances can Lao PDR resort to the 
"dissolution of a private courier company providing the services of the international 
letter post and parcel post items"?  Are similar requirements placed on courier 
companies servicing the domestic market?  Do  those requirements apply to the national 
postal authority when it is acting in competition with private courier services 
(for example, in providing express delivery services)?  
- Article 8 states that "Letter post items (for small package) and parcel post items 
accepted by the company must be inspected by  the postal officer and tax officer at the 
postal check point every time before di spatching and the company has to pay for 
service fee 20,000 kip/package/time to Lao State Postal Enterprise".  We request that Lao PDR please explain how this cost is in line with the service rendered.  Further, can 
Lao PDR please clarify whether a similar fee is placed on domestic letters?  Does a 
similar fee apply to the national postal author ity when it is acting in competition with 
private courier services (for example,  in providing express delivery services)?  
- How many postal check points are there and where are they located?  Will the 
Government, upon request, establish a postal check point at the place of business of a 
courier service provider?  Lao PDR has undertaken a commitment to allow express 
delivery services defined, inter alia , as collection, transport and delivery "on an WT/ACC/LAO/43 
Page 34  
 
  expedited basis".  What steps has Lao PDR taken to ensure that the inspection system 
does not prevent the couriers from providing  expedited service in comparison with 
other forms of collection, transport and delivery?  
- Article 8 also requires that courier compan ies providing international services "Report 
monthly, quarterly, yearly statistics to the division of post, telecommunication and 
communication of the provinces/Municipality".  What is the purpose of collecting this 
information?  Is the same information required of the national postal authority's international services?  Does this informatio n relate solely to the volume of packages, 
etc. being transported, or is it more detailed?  Are there exemptions for proprietary information?  Is the same information requi red of courier companies and the national 
postal authority when providing domestic services?    
- Article 11 appears to prohibit private courier companies from setting their own prices, 
and requiring such companies to obtain approval from the Ministry of Post for price 
decreases, increases or price campaigns.  Th ese requirements do not appear to be in 
line with Lao PDR's market access and nati onal treatment commitments with respect 
to courier services.  Can Lao PDR plea se clarify how this article functions?  
- With respect to Article 14, and fines that  can be imposed for non-compliance, are 
similar fines imposed on domestic couriers a nd the national postal authority?  If so, 
please provide the regulation imposing such fines.    
Answer: 
Lao PDR thanks for Members' comments.  Please fi nd responses to specific questions below.   
Article 5 of the Regulation provides a general stat ement on which government au thority is responsible 
for issuing, suspending or withdrawing a business ope rating licence for international courier services 
in the Lao PDR.  It is not intended to prescribe the circumstances of suspending or withdrawing the licence.  In spite of the general provision of Article  5 of the Regulation, the government authority may 
impose a measure on an international courier company only as per prescribed in Articles 13 and 14 of 
the Regulation.  With regard to the dissolution of  an enterprise, the 2005 Enterprise Law applies.  
An enterprise may be dissolved only in circumstan ces prescribed in the Enterprise Law (e.g. upon a 
resolution of shareholders or as per a court decision). 
As per its Article 2, the Regulation applies to a ll companies which are located in the Lao PDR and 
which provide services of international letter post and parcel post items regardless the nationality of 
shareholders of such companies. 
The scope of application as per Article 2 of Regul ation does not provide any exemption to Lao State 
Postal Enterprise.  Therefore, if Lao State Postal Enterprise runs services of international letter post 
and parcel post items, it would be subject to the same requirements as any other courier companies 
providing such services. 
There is a translation error: "tax officer" should have been "customs officer".  The cost is to cover the 
approximate expenses to be incurred by the officers (e.g. daily travel to the courier company places) 
to carry out inspection at the places of courier comp anies.  The relevant authority is in the discussion 
with courier companies to decide on annual fixed fee instead of 20,000 Kip/package/time. 
Note that the fee is to cover the cost of the inspection of items imported to or exported from the 
Lao PDR by post.  The inspection is for customs pur pose and does not apply to domestic letters.  
The scope of application as per Article 2 of Regul ation does not provide any exemption to Lao State 
Postal Enterprise.  Therefore, if Lao State Postal Enterprise runs services of international letter post  WT/ACC/LAO/43 
 Page 35 
 
 
  and parcel post items, it would be subject to the same requirements as any other courier companies 
providing such services. 
The inspection/checkpoint can be carried out at the places of courier companies, if requested. 
The establishment of checkpoint at the places of c ourier companies aims to expedite the courier 
services. 
The report is for statistical purpose so that the aut hority can monitor the increase or decline of use of 
courier services and general revenues made in these services. 
The scope of application as per Article 2 of Regul ation does not provide any exemption to Lao State 
Postal Enterprise.  Therefore, if Lao State Postal Enterprise runs services of international letter post 
and parcel post items, it would be subject to the same requirements as any other courier companies 
providing such services. 
As per Article 9 of the Regulation, the informa tion to be reported covers statistics, volumes and 
production value (i.e. revenues of services). 
Proprietary information is not required.  Please see above response. The reporting obligation applies to all compani es including those providing domestic services. 
The purpose of Article 11 is to ensure the stability  and fairness of service fees for both service users 
and service providers. 
As per its Article 2, the Regulation applies to a ll companies which are located in the Lao PDR and 
which provide services of international letter post and parcel post items regardless the nationality of 
shareholders of such companies. 
 
 
__________