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 3, 2015

Cambodia: Franchising Regulation Develops

Managing Intellectual Property

Cambodia has attracted an increasing number of regional and international franchise businesses. Most of these franchises are in the restaurant and service sectors, and include well-known names such as Costa Coffee, Dairy Queen, Gloria Jean’s Coffees, KFC, The Pizza Company, Ya Kun Coffee & Toast, and Sarpinos Pizza, to name a few.

Although a number of franchise businesses are operating in Cambodia, there is currently no legal framework governing franchising in the country, and the laws that do apply (e.g., trademark law and contract law) do not restrict franchising structures and allow parties to generally contract as they desire.

Section 52 of the Law Concerning Marks, Trade Names and Acts of Unfair Competition requires all license agreements that relate to registered marks to be recorded. Currently, there is a recordal process to record license and franchise agreements with the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR) under the Ministry of Commerce in Cambodia.

If a license agreement is not recorded with the DIPR, the license agreement will still be valid and enforceable between the licensor and licensee. However, the drawback of not recording the license agreement is that it will not have any effect against third parties. In addition, the failure to record a license agreement may:

  • bar a claim for damages and accounts of profits;
  • bar the use of marks inuring for benefit of the licensor, and may make marks vulnerable to cancellation for non-use;
  • prevent a licensee from participating in any infringement proceedings before the registry or bringing those proceedings; and
  • preclude the licensee from having rights to enforce against infringement.

A draft Law on Commercial Contract (Draft Law) is being contemplated which would guide contractual relations, including franchises, if enacted. The Draft Law also requires franchise agreements to be registered with the relevant authorities in order to be enforceable against third parties.

The Draft Law broadly requires franchise agreements to set forth the respective obligations and rights of the parties to the franchise; the provisions relevant to the use by the franchisee of the franchisor’s intellectual property rights, logo, store sign, or other distinguishing identification; and the provisions related to quality control, as well as duration, terms, and termination of the franchise agreement.

In view of the Draft Law, it is recommended to record a franchise agreement because registration has evidentiary value in the event of a dispute, and it allows franchise owners to enforce their rights against third parties. Moreover, Cambodian courts give substantial credit to official records of documents over unrecorded agreements.

Under the current practice, a short-form trademark license agreement arising from the franchise agreement may be submitted for recordal. The short-form trademark license agreement should contain relevant terms such as the marks being licensed, rights of the parties, terms, and so forth. A recent Notification on License Contract and Franchise Contract from the Ministry of Commerce, dated March 12, 2015, provides that any applicants seeking recordal of their licensing agreement or franchise contract with the DIPR must submit the following documents:

  1. An original form of request as provided in the Notification.
  2. A franchise agreement signed by the parties and witnesses. (This does not need to be submitted if short-form licenses are recorded.)
  3. Short-form licenses, if any, signed by the trademark owner in favor of the franchisor. A Khmer translation of this agreement must be submitted.
  4. Certificate(s) of trademark registration issued by the DIPR.
  5. A notarized power of attorney in case the parties choose to appoint an attorney in the matter.
  6. Other documents that may be requested on a case-by-case basis.

Under the current practice, the DIPR requires franchise agreements and license agreements to be translated into Khmer, and these translations must be certified by public notaries. Qualified translators may be Cambodian qualified lawyers, notaries public, trademark agents, or licensed translation companies.

For franchise agreements that relate to registered trademarks with the DIPR, the recordal process can be completed within two months or so from the date of submission. An official fee of USD 30 must be paid for recordation. Once recorded, the DIPR will issue a “Certificate of Recordal” to the applicant. However, a recordal will remain pending if the intellectual property rights have not yet been registered (including where the trademark application is pending).

With the advent of the ASEAN Economic Community and the implementation of regional economic integration, Cambodia should continue to grow as an increasingly attractive market for franchisors. Potential new market entrants should closely monitor the progress of the draft Law on Commercial Contract and its practical implementation in the country.

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
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
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.
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