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​ 

July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
July 4, 2025
On July 3, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) officially announced an invitation for stakeholders to participate in a public survey to gather feedback on the flexibility and appropriateness of credit terms across different business sectors for goods and services. The TCCT initially introduced guidelines on unfair trade practices related to credit terms applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in 2021, with amendments following in 2022. The guidelines have had a wide impact, as businesses have had to adapt their payment procedures and practices, particularly those for dealing with SMEs, to comply with the guidelines. The TCCT is now seeking comprehensive feedback from businesses and other stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness and practicality of these guidelines. The collected responses may potentially lead to future amendments aimed at enhancing fairness and efficiency in business transactions. To summarize the core principles, the guidelines aim to improve the liquidity and cash flow of SMEs, stipulating payment terms of: Within 30 days for agricultural products or primary agricultural processing involving non-complex production. Within 45 days for trade, manufacturing, and service sectors. The guidelines also identify practices deemed unfair, including: Unjustified delays in payment beyond agreed credit terms. Changes to credit terms or contractual conditions without at least 60 days’ advance notice. Other unfair conduct or credit term conditions that impose excessive burdens on an SME. Interested stakeholders are encouraged to submit their feedback through the TCCT’s online survey form available via their official public media channels. The survey is open for responses until July 20, 2025.
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More