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 21, 2023

Brand Protection at the Cambodian Border: Insights and Strategies from the Front Line

Subscribe to Updates

In this article originally published by World Trademark Review, Tilleke & Gibbins senior associate David Mol shares advice on how to collaborate effectively with customs officials at Cambodian border points and ports, offering a guide on how to successfully monitor for—and enforce against—counterfeit and grey market goods.  

Can rights holders record trademark and brand-related IP information with Customs and, if so, how?  

At present, there is no formal customs IP recordal system in place in Cambodia. However, rights holders may consider:

  • a request letter to Customs; or
  • recordal of an exclusive distributorship.

Request letter to Customs

A request letter to Customs would be an effective measure in cases where a rights holder is aware of a specific customs checkpoint that is being used to smuggle infringing goods. The rights holder may request to set up a meeting with Customs at the checkpoint to provide officials with:

  • guidance on the issue;
  • the IP rights involved; and
  • information on product identification.

The rights holder may further request the official’s assistance in monitoring shipments for certain goods.

Customs has been open and cooperative in the past, setting up direct communication lines between rights holders and border officials. Officials then:

  • monitor shipments;
  • exchange sighting reports; and
  • set up inspections where applicable.

However, this option is not directly regulated under any laws or regulations, and can only be considered as an ad hoc approach in cases where the rights holder is aware of issues at a specific checkpoint. We usually do not recommend using this approach to alert all checkpoints in Cambodia, as it is rather time-intensive, requiring close cooperation and active liaison with officials. Instead, targeting specific checkpoints has proven to work in our experience.

A request letter to Customs may apply to all types of intellectual property. However, a recently issued regulation that addresses suspensions of shipments based on IP infringements does not include suspensions based on patents and designs. This means that rights holders need to request that Customs rely on other laws and regulations when a design right or patent is subject to infringement, which may prove difficult in practice.

Customs officials—rightfully so—feel less certain of their powers, including ex officio powers, to suspend shipments infringing patents and design rights, as the recent regulation does not include these rights.

Recordal of an exclusive distributorship

The second method for rights holders requires appointing an exclusive distributor in Cambodia for goods bearing a registered trademark. This is followed by a recordal of the exclusive distributorship with the Ministry of Commerce’s Department of Intellectual Property Rights, which in turn informs Customs of the recorded distributorship.

After this, any trademark-protected goods falling under the recorded exclusive distributorship may be imported by only the appointed distributor. This provides Customs with the power to take action against parallel imports, but may also stop infringing goods, as these are (almost certainly) not imported by the exclusive distributor.

This option currently applies only to trademark rights.

Are copyright registrations also registerable with Customs?

At present, there is no customs recordal system in place for any type of intellectual property, including copyrights.

In addition, although the Berne Convention now applies in Cambodia, the local legislative framework is not yet fully updated to reflect this. The protection of a copyright that is not locally registered or locally published shortly after creation may prove difficult. However, we believe that a legislative update is imminent.

Can brand owners send customs officials a product information guide or any additional materials to assist them in identifying genuine products?

Yes, they most certainly can.

In our experience, the most effective approach is to organize an in-person training session for customs officials. However, when dealing with an IP infringement issue, Customs will accept information of any kind, with a preference for printed materials (eg, a brochure or a presentation) and soft copies. A genuine sample and, if available, a counterfeit sample are often requested as well.

What is the typical process for confiscation or further investigation in the event that customs officials identify potentially counterfeit goods?

Under Prakas (Regulation) No 196 of the Policy for the Suspension of Customs Clearance Procedures of Imports and Exports violating Intellectual Property Rights, there are two main ways for Customs officials to identify counterfeit goods, namely:

  • through ex officio actions; or
  • after a request by the brand owner.

In the case of ex officio actions, the brand owner will be contacted by Customs in writing, as required under Prakas No 196, once the suspicious goods are found. We note that in the past, the trademark agent as registered alongside a trademark registration is usually the individual contacted.

The owner (or its agent) is required to respond to the customs notification within seven business days, by providing the requested information and (initial) verification of the suspicious goods.

If there is sufficient evidence of infringement, the shipment will remain suspended, giving the brand owner a further 10 business days to commence a customs dispute resolution procedure or to file a court complaint. Customs will request a security from the brand owner, at a maximum 30% value of the shipment (or up to 100% in the case of perishable goods).

If the brand owner does not take action against the infringement, Customs has the right—but is not obliged—to take the matter to court itself.

Another option is having the brand owner request the suspension of a certain shipment. If approved, Customs will notify the brand owner to attend an inspection of the shipment, to which the brand owner must respond in writing within 10 business days. The inspection will then be scheduled, and if the infringement is confirmed, the shipment will remain suspended and the brand owner will have to take the matter to court to continue the proceedings. Again, Customs may request a security placement from the brand owner, at a maximum 30% value of the shipment (or up to 100% in the case of perishable goods).

How will brand owners typically be contacted when suspicious or counterfeit goods are identified?

Typically, their agents as registered will be contacted. This is done in writing where the aforementioned Prakas No 196 prescribes this. Otherwise, phone, email or messaging can be used to notify the agent.

We have not heard of Customs writing directly to overseas brand owners when there is no agent registered with the trademark registry at the Ministry of Commerce’s Department of Intellectual Property Rights.

Are there any time-sensitive considerations that brand owners should be aware of when dealing with customs-related IP enforcement?

In the case of an ex officio action, the owner (or its agent) is required to respond to the customs notification within seven business days, by providing the requested information and (initial) verification of the product.

If there is sufficient evidence of infringement, the shipment will remain suspended, giving the brand owner a further 10 business days to commence a customs dispute resolution procedure or to file a court complaint.

If a brand owner requests the suspension of a suspicious shipment, it must reply to a notification for Customs to organize an inspection within 10 business days.

What are the potential costs involved in working with customs officials to protect a brand’s intellectual property, and how can these costs be managed effectively?

The main driver costs is engaging a local agent or counsel to manage the process, as customs engagement is rather time-intensive, often on an urgent basis and involves substantial travel time. It is necessary to engage counsel to navigate the process, as many of the regulations are new and not many firms have experience.

Managing costs comes down to the basics of:

  • setting a clear scope of work; and
  • working with experienced counsel who are not (re-)inventing the wheel at every step of the process.

Official fees are generally affordable for all processes. Security placements may be an issue for high-value shipments, but at the stage of placing the security, there should be sufficient indication that the products are indeed an infringement.

Can you provide examples of successful collaborations between international companies and customs authorities that have resulted in tangible results?

An international company identified a potential shipment that very likely held counterfeit goods bearing its registered trademark. However, due to the nature of the case, the company could not follow the route of Prakas No 196 to formally request a suspension and inspection, as this requires prima facie evidence of the infringement and other information.

The reason for this is that the brand owner had received the information from credible sources—namely, overseas law enforcement—but was not in a position to share the evidence with the authorities. Thus, the owner could not comply with the application requirements of Prakas No 196 to request suspension of the shipment and an inspection of the goods.

It is worth noting that we usually prefer to follow the route of Prakas No 196, as it sets out clear rights and obligations for both Customs and the applicant, which gives more certainty that the inspection will take place.

However, due to the nature of this case, the company relied on an alternative approach and instead submitted a request letter to Customs and other authorities involved. Customs was open, considered the requests and cooperated with the brand owner and its representatives.

Eventually, the shipment was inspected with the attendance of all involved authorities, including Customs and the brand owner, with Customs taking a leading role to organize the inspection and issue official reports on it.

The inspected shipment contained counterfeit goods with an estimated value of several million dollars. The counterfeit goods have since been seized as evidence and are currently placed under seal, pending an application to the authorities for their immediate destruction.

What proactive strategies can brand owners employ to enhance their partnership with customs officials and improve their chances of intercepting counterfeit goods before they enter/exit the market?

Our firm regularly organizes training events, where enforcement officers, including customs officials, learn how to identify counterfeits and learn about a brand’s background. In addition, legal training sessions are provided to increase understanding of the law.

These events create goodwill among officials, which often leads to an increase in sighting reports for the participating brands. At these events, brands may also organize side meetings with customs officials to directly address any issues they face and to establish a communication framework with the authorities.

Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More