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​ 

June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More