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​ 

May 26, 2025
On May 21, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published a press release signaling heightened regulation of digital platforms in response to the influx of products from foreign countries being sold in Thailand via e-commerce platforms. In recent years, the rapid expansion of cross-border multi-sided e-commerce platforms has unlocked unprecedented growth, but it has also flooded Thailand’s digital marketplaces with low-cost imports sold by unregulated foreign vendors via these platforms, unfairly undercutting local merchants’ market share and exposing consumers to uneven product quality. According to the press release, the TCCT announced progress on drafting new guidelines on unfair trade practices, monopolistic conduct, and competition restraint by multi-sided e-commerce platforms at a recent meeting of the Management Committee for Addressing Issues of Foreign Goods and Businesses Violating Laws. This regulatory push is part of a broader governmental effort to tackle issues stemming from the foregoing that create uneven playing fields and undermine consumer welfare. The draft guidelines are designed to regulate platform operators and their complex and multidimensional trade relations that cause network effects and distort competition. The forthcoming guidelines, to be issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), will undergo public consultation to ensure platform operators, the public, and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide input before they are finalized and enforced. The guidelines are seen as an important priority, with the minister of commerce urging swift implementation of the measures to achieve the government’s objectives. In addition to the legislative advancement, one of the TCCT commissioners has been appointed to advise a subcommittee on preventing nominee arrangements by foreign investors and a subcommittee dedicated to promoting Thai SMEs and eliminating poor-quality imports. The appointee will also support the nationwide task force against illegal foreign products in overseeing proactive field operations and comprehensive
Read More
May 6, 2025
On May 2, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT), in cooperation with the OECD, held a conference to discuss the results of the OECD Peer Review of Thailand’s competition law and policy. This review, conducted under the second phase of the OECD-Thailand Country Program, marks a significant milestone in Thailand’s ongoing institutional reform. Tilleke & Gibbins’ trade competition experts were invited to participate in both the program and the conference. The OECD Peer Review aimed to assess the current state of Thailand’s legal and regulatory environment surrounding competition law and policies, pinpoint strengths and weaknesses, and offer recommendations on potential future development. This article highlights the review’s key findings and recommendations, and their implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Institutional Framework: Room for Improvement Competition law in Thailand has undergone significant transformation, particularly since the enactment of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA). This landmark legislation aimed to revolutionize the competition regime, notably by amending important legal provisions to enhance public enforcement capabilities and establishing the TCCT as an independent authority separate from government ministries, endowed with its own budget and powers to enforce competition law across key areas: anticompetitive agreements, abuse of dominant market positions, merger control, and unfair trade practices. The goal was to create a more efficient, flexible, and independent agency and to prevent political intervention. However, the OECD Peer Review points out a major impediment. The TCCT faces considerable budget and human resource constraints, which may impact its enforcement capacity. Its budget is comparatively low by international and regional standards, and only a fraction of its staff is dedicated to core competition enforcement (merger control and anticompetitive behavior). Furthermore, there is room for the TCCT to continue its improvements in expertise and efficiency—areas the TCCT has been attempting to shore up
Read More
May 2, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the latest edition of Doing Business in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that offers an overview of key legal considerations for companies operating in jurisdictions worldwide. The contribution outlines the country’s legal and regulatory framework for foreign investment and business operations and reflects the latest legislative developments. The chapter addresses the following core topics: Legal system: Structure of the courts and the codified nature of Thai law. Foreign investment: Business restrictions under the Foreign Business Act, sector-specific regulations, exchange control rules, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Overview of partnerships, private and public limited companies, and other legal entities. Employment: Labor protections, employment contracts, foreign worker requirements, and termination procedures. Tax: Corporate and personal income tax, indirect taxes, and tax obligations for residents and non-residents. Intellectual property: Registration and enforcement of patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights. Data protection: Key provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act and related compliance obligations. Competition law: Regulatory framework under the Trade Competition Act. Anti-bribery and corruption: Relevant legislation and enforcement mechanisms. E-commerce and digital business: Legal regime for online transactions and digital platforms. Marketing and advertising: Consumer protection laws and regulations affecting advertising and marketing practices. Product regulation and liability: Safety standards, liability regimes, and roles of enforcement authorities. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The insurance and reinsurance guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the guide, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
April 29, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually
Read More