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 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Thailand recently concluded the latest round of high-level trade discussions with its US trade counterparts. In addition to addressing concerns over claimed human rights abuses, forced labor, and the current trade imbalance with the US, one critical area of focus was US allegations of transshipment in Thailand’s import-export sector. Transshipment is the practice of routing goods through a third country to circumvent duties or tariffs on goods exported to the receiving country. Specifically, the US alleges that many Thai exporters declare a Thai origin for goods to qualify for preferential duties or exemptions without meeting the legal standards for establishing Thai product origin—an act that it claims masks the goods’ true origin. This is a particular matter of concern for US authorities, since transshipment is perceived to be a means by which Thai origin is claimed for many Chinese goods exported abroad. This perception affects a wide range of otherwise legitimate Thai-origin goods. The Thai trade delegation, led by Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Suphajee Suthumpun, met with counterparts from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on May 3–6. A subsequent team of Thai trade representatives, led by the Thai Ministry of Commerce vice minister, met with the USTR on May 13–14. These discussions directly impact the trade enforcement environment in Thailand, potentially affecting numerous business operators involved in the manufacture, import, or export of goods and components. Thailand’s position is that it strictly adheres to and enforces the legal standards for determining qualifying origin and that allegations of transshipment are largely unjustified. Nonetheless, it has agreed to increase its focus on trade compliance and enforcement in Thailand in return for commitments on reciprocal trade benefits with the US, including consideration of tariff exemptions on certain critical Thai imports into the US. Notable Outcomes There
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More