You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

November 13, 2012

IP Enforcement Training for Government Officers in Laos and Cambodia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

As trade barriers continue to be reduced in ASEAN, a larger number of counterfeit products are likely to be circulated within the region. It is therefore important for companies to ensure that their intellectual property enforcement training is not only focused on government officials in relatively developed countries like Thailand, but also reaches the authorities in emerging markets, such as Laos and Cambodia, where an increasing number of counterfeit goods can be found.

With this in mind, Tilleke & Gibbins cooperated with several of our major clients to hold IP enforcement training sessions for government officers in Vientiane, Laos, on September 14, 2012, and in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, on October 11, 2012. These were groundbreaking events, as they represented the first time that key government agencies have collaborated with private companies to cohost events dedicated to IP enforcement training in these countries.

Laos

Tilleke & Gibbins and four famous brand owners, including companies focused on alcoholic beverages, cosmetics, consumer products, and luxury goods, arranged a training seminar intended to raise general IP knowledge and awareness among Laos government officers and educate them on how to identify genuine and counterfeit products.

The training was useful in facilitating an exchange of experiences among the government officers and brand owners when pursuing enforcement actions against infringers, while also promoting cooperation between the public and private sectors. It also provided the officers with information about whom they should contact when they find suspected counterfeit products or when they have any problems concerning suspicious goods.

The 81 IP enforcement officers in attendance—representing a diverse range of government agencies, such as the Laos Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), tax officials, economic police officers, prosecutors, court officials, and commerce and industry representatives—responded positively to the training and expressed interest in the products that were displayed in the exhibition.

The training was cohosted by the DIP, Ministry of Science and Technology, in collaboration with Tilleke & Gibbins and the four participating brands. Mr. Sitha Phouyavong, the Director General of the DIP, presided over the event. Recognizing that this was the first such event held by the DIP, Mr. Phouyavong was enthusiastic about the outcome, and informed the audience that he would like to continue arranging this type of training in Laos, as it provides a unique learning opportunity for the dedicated officers who carry out IP enforcement in the country.

Cambodia

Following the success of the Laos event, a similar IP enforcement training session in October brought together 78 officers from Cambodian government agencies such as the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, the Department of Intellectual Property Rights, the Department of Customs (CAMCONTROL), the Ministry of Industry, Mines, and Energy, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, the Ministry of Justice, and the Department of Anti-Economic Crimes Prosecutors.

Seven of the most recognizable brands in the world participated in the Cambodia training, including companies focused on alcoholic beverages, apparel, consumer products, luxury goods, and more.

The training session was cohosted by the Secretariat of the National Committee for Intellectual Property Rights and the Department of Intellectual Property Rights, Ministry of  Commerce, in collaboration with Tilleke & Gibbins. His Excellency Var Roth San, Advisor to the Ministry of Commerce and Head of the Secretariat of National Committee for Intellectual Property Rights (NCIPR), Director of Intellectual Property Rights, the Ministry of Commerce, presided over the event.

Impact

Both events attracted a great deal of media attention. In Laos, the Vientiane Times described the success of the seminar in creating conditions favorable for trading activities and helping to develop a more investment-friendly climate. In Cambodia, the event was featured in two newspapers, both of which emphasized the need for such training and how local authorities have not previously been fully equipped to detect infringement, nor have they been educated on the impact of enforcement of IP rights.

In addition to media coverage, the brands that participated in the events were able to educate and develop goodwill with key government authorities, and they expect to see a tangible impact in the enforcement of their rights in each country. Given the level of interest among the government officers, these may be just the first in a series of training sessions in these countries, as Laos and Cambodia push to strengthen their IP enforcement regimes.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More