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​ 

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
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