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

September 23, 2024

Cambodia Launches Trial of Intellectual Property Rights Recordation System

Subscribe to Updates

The General Department of Customs and Excise (GDCE) in Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance launched a trial phase of its Intellectual Property Rights Recordation System (IPRRS) on September 1, 2024.

The system compiles necessary information and documents related to intellectual property rights in the country, enabling customs authorities to swiftly access these documents and enhance their ability to identify and intercept potential parallel imports and infringing goods at the border. This will also better facilitate ex-officio actions by customs authorities. The system is currently referred to as being in a “trial phase” to support further amendments or updates to address any potential technical errors that may arise from public use. However, the IPRRS is already fully operational.

Types of Recordation

Currently, the IPRRS allows two types of recordation:

  • Intellectual property recordation is available for trademarks, geographical indications, copyrights, and related rights that are protected in Cambodia. It allows IP owners, authorized representatives, and legal representatives to record information and documents relating to such rights, including information on possible or potential counterfeit goods, with the GDCE. Recordation will give customs authorities quicker access to the information and enable them to promptly take action against potential counterfeit or infringing goods.
  • Exclusive distributorship recordation is meant to streamline the process that takes place after the Ministry of Commerce issues a notice of the recordation of exclusive rights. Under the current practice, after receiving a copy of a notice of the recordal of an exclusive distributorship issued by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), the GDCE needs to enter the information into their system manually to enable them to promptly identify or stop potential parallel importation at the border. This reportedly causes delays in border officers’ access to the necessary information. Recordation through the IPRRS, on the other hand, allows local exclusive distributors and their authorized or legal representatives to submit the MOC notice on the recordation of exclusive rights to the GDCE right away, ensuring that the officers have quicker access to these documents so they can take timely action.

However, IP owners seeking customs clearance are required to submit their complaints physically, as the digital system for customs clearance requests is currently under development.

Validity

Recordation under the IPRRS remains valid for as long as the IP rights are valid. If trademark rights expire, a renewal needs to be filed with the Department of Intellectual Property in the MOC, followed by a new recordation using the IPRRS.

For exclusive distributorship recordation, the validity aligns with the MOC’s notice on the recordal of exclusive distributorship. If the notice expires, a renewal must be done at the Department of Intellectual Property in the MOC, followed by a new recordation using the IPRRS.

Recordation Timeframe and Status

The result of a request for recordation will be available within two business days (or less) of filing. If the request is successful, the status on the IPRRS will appear as accepted, and there will be no official notice confirming the successful recordation.

There is no penalty for not recording IP rights or exclusive distribution rights on the IPRRS. However, doing so benefits IP owners and exclusive distributors by helping customs authorities take prompt action against counterfeit or infringing goods as well as parallel importation.

For more details on the IPRRS, or on any aspect of intellectual property rights enforcement in Cambodia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 17, 2025
The Department of Trade under Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued a schedule of revised service fees for trade-related services, effective October 15, 2025. The revised fees are contained in Newsletter of Export/Import 6/2025, which supersedes the previous rates set out in 2018 and 2020. Service Fees The revised fees include the following: Annual fee for TradeNet 2.0, the MOC online platform for trade submissions: MMK 50,000 (approx. USD 23.81) Online service application fee: MMK 10,000 (approx. USD 4.76) Import or export license renewal (including for all imported goods exempt from the license fees): MMK 50,000 (approx. USD 23.81) for initial renewal (two months) MMK 30,000 (approx. USD 14.29) for second renewal (one month) Amendment of license information: MMK 10,000 (approx. USD 4.76) per amendment Return of export/import license: MMK 30,000 (approx. USD 14.29) Late fees for renewal/amendment of import or export license: MMK 5,000 (approx. USD 2.38) if within one month of expiry MMK 10,000 (approx. USD 4.76) if later than one month after expiry Submission Schedule License renewal applications submitted more than 14 days after the license expiration date will not be processed. Applications for license amendment must be submitted in advance of the relevant goods’ arrival at Myanmar ports or airports. For more information on this announcement, or on any aspect of import and export matters in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More
October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More