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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More