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

May 28, 2015

Cambodia’s Swift Accession to the Madrid Protocol

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Madrid System for the international registration of marks, governed by the Madrid Protocol, is gaining popularity across Southeast Asia. Several countries in the region are preparing to implement Madrid as part of their commitments toward regional integration via the ASEAN Economic Community, which will be created at the end of 2015. 

In the most recent development, Cambodia has surpassed the expectations of many observers by joining the Madrid Protocol on March 5, 2015, with the system set to enter into force on June 5, 2015. Cambodia moved quickly and is now the fourth ASEAN country to join the Madrid Protocol—following in the footsteps of Vietnam, Singapore, and the Philippines, and bypassing regional neighbors like Thailand and Indonesia, which are both in the process of preparing for accession.

As the Madrid Protocol will soon come into effect in the country, we will answer some of the key questions about how Cambodia is preparing to adopt the Madrid System.

How Are the Cambodian IP Authorities Preparing for the New System?

Online Registration of Marks

Article 1 of Prakas No. 206 on the Organization and Functioning of the Department of Intellectual Property, dated July 24, 2014 (Prakas No. 206), provides that the Department of Intellectual Property Rights in Cambodia (DIPR) will establish and manage a website of intellectual property rights to promote public awareness of IP laws and regulations, as well as to clarify registered IP rights.

On March 28, 2015, Mr. Sim Sokheng, Director of the DIPR, confirmed that the DIPR is preparing a website for the public to register and search online for national and international marks. By late August 2015, it will be possible to file for both national and international registration of marks online on the DIPR’s website.

The Law Concerning Marks, Trade Names, and Acts of Unfair Competition                

Mr. Sim has said that no amendments will be made to the Law Concerning Marks, Trade Names, and Acts of Unfair Competition, in order to comply with the Madrid Protocol. If any provisions of the law conflict with the Madrid Protocol, the Madrid Protocol will take precedence over the preexisting law.

Regulations on the Madrid System’s Registration Procedure

The DIPR is also preparing a draft regulation (referred to as a Prakas in Khmer) on the Procedures for Registration with the Madrid System, which will detail new procedures. This will come into force no later than June 6, 2015.

Will the IP Office Be Restructured?

According to a source at the Division of the Registration of Marks and Article 3 of Prakas No. 206, two separate divisions will be responsible for the national registration of marks and the international registration of marks. The new Prakas will provide further details about any organizational restructuring and the impact on examiners and registrars.

How Will International Applications Be Handled?

Under Article 5 of Prakas No. 206, the Division of International Registration of Marks will be established with the duties to:

  • establish procedures for the international registration of marks;
  •  prepare and implement such procedures; 
  • manage official fees for the international registration of marks and collaborate with the Administration and IT Division, Accounting Division, and the Financial Department of the Ministry of Commerce;
  • provide certificates of internationally-registered marks, as requested;
  • remind applicants of the use or non-use of marks;
  • fulfill duties to register and protect international marks to comply with the Madrid Protocol and other regulations on behalf of the Office of Origin and the Office of the Contracting Party; and
  • other duties assigned by the top management.

What Kind of Training Will Be Offered?

Article 1 of Prakas No. 206 provides that the DIPR will collaborate with the Training and Research Center of the Ministry of Commerce and related ministries to increase public awareness of intellectual property laws and regulations and to educate officers in the relevant government departments.

Mr. Sim has stated that the DIPR will conduct public training in the near future, and that a schedule will later be confirmed by the DIPR. One DIPR officer has said that, within this year, the DIPR will initially provide training to intellectual property agents.

What Trademark Search Mechanisms Will Be Available?

The DIPR will establish a website where people can conduct trademark searches for national and international marks.

How Will Trademark Owners Benefit?

Trademark owners will benefit greatly from using this tool for the international registration of marks. The Madrid System will provide a means of trademark protection in Cambodia that is faster and more effective than the DIPR’s current system of trademark protection, and so we can expect to see a growth in confidence among brand owners with interests in the country.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
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