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

February 17, 2017

Brand Awareness Training in Cambodia and Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Cambodia and Thailand are among the largest markets for counterfeit goods in the ASEAN region. To tackle this problem, it is important to raise awareness about the widespread problems and impacts of counterfeit goods, implement innovative approaches for counterfeit inspection and identification, strengthen private sector partnerships with government agencies, and support more aggressive action against the production and trade of counterfeit goods. In late 2016, Tilleke & Gibbins had the opportunity to assist brand owners with their intellectual property (IP) enforcement efforts by arranging training sessions for government officers in Cambodia and Thailand.

Cambodia

Four years after we organized our first IP training session in Cambodia, Tilleke & Gibbins is continuing our efforts to develop local counterfeit inspection and enforcement capabilities by holding a further training session at the Intercontinental Hotel in Phnom Penh on November 22, 2016.

More than 60 officers from 14 different ministries participated in the training, including those at the front lines of Cambodian IP enforcement—Customs officers, the Economic Police, and Cambodia Import-Export Inspection and Fraud Repression Directorate General (Camcontrol) officers. Most attendees were also members of the National Committee of Intellectual Property Rights, a group established in 2008 to strengthen cross-departmental cooperation for better enforcement of laws and regulations on IP rights. Representatives from seven famous companies in the business of agricultural machinery, apparel, consumer goods, mobile phones, and other products joined the session to provide insights into their brands.

With government officers in Cambodia currently facing challenges in identifying counterfeit products due to limited field experience and lack of information resources, the training helped officers update their knowledge of counterfeit goods and establish working relationships with brand owners, who can provide in-depth expertise and advice when suspected counterfeit goods are found in the future.

Not only did we achieve our main goal of assisting local authorities, but we were also able to strengthen relationships among government agencies, brand owners, and our firm, laying the groundwork for future collaboration. Tilleke & Gibbins already has plans to work with the Counter Counterfeit Committee of Cambodia to organize new IP enforcement activities for a number of clients.

Thailand

For more than a decade, Tilleke & Gibbins has consistently arranged training sessions on product identification in Thailand to help attendees differentiate between genuine and counterfeit goods, with the aim of providing effective techniques on how to inspect the goods of brand owners participating in the events.

In practice, Customs officers regularly seize counterfeit goods at Thailand’s borders under their ex officio capacity, as provided under the Customs Act. Unfortunately, Customs officers have only a short time to detain any suspicious counterfeit goods. To complicate matters further, brand owners may launch a new model of a product or even new packaging designs that contain different points of reference, making it more difficult to distinguish a brand’s genuine product from its counterfeit counterpart. It is therefore important for Customs officers to regularly update their knowledge on how to inspect a wide variety of counterfeit goods.

To assist local authorities, Tilleke & Gibbins arranged two training sessions on December 15-16, 2016—one for 63 Customs officers at Suvarnabhumi Airport and the other for 63 Customs officers at Laem Chabang Customs Port. Representatives from ten leading brands joined the sessions to display their products, including alcoholic beverages, apparel, consumer goods, electric appliances, and more. The Customs officers were enthusiastic in the sessions and had a unique opportunity to learn directly from brand owners and from Tilleke & Gibbins professionals who served as the legal representatives of several global brands.

The director of the Central Service Division, Suvarnabhumi Airport Cargo Clearance Customs Bureau, and the director of Laem Chabang Customs Port both expressed their appreciation for the training events and emphasized that the knowledge received by Customs officers will undoubtedly assist them in their fieldwork. The training was also a good opportunity for Customs officers to meet and gain contact details of brand owners, who can assist in counterfeit suppression work in the future. Both directors recognized Tilleke & Gibbins and our clients for our invaluable training contributions, which underscored the strong cooperation between the Customs Department and the private sector in creating joint solutions to the counterfeiting problem in Thailand.

Enhancing Capabilities

Tilleke & Gibbins shares the objective of all stakeholders to take aggressive legal action against counterfeit goods in the region, and education of government officials on brand awareness and anticounterfeiting techniques is an important starting point for such actions. Our firm may arrange additional IP training sessions in 2017 if the opportunity arises, to help further enhance the capabilities of local authorities and foster collaboration.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More