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

August 24, 2015

Cambodia’s Trademark Registration Procedures

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Madrid Protocol entered into force in Cambodia on June 5, 2015. Consequently, trademark protection can now be obtained through national and international channels. While the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR) plans to issue new regulations on the Madrid System’s registration procedures—and so the procedures may be subject to change—there has been no official announcement to date. Therefore, this article discusses Cambodia’s current trademark registration procedures to help foreign applicants effectively manage their trademark portfolios.

Formal Examination

After a trademark application is filed, the World Intellectual Property Organization will conduct a formal examination to assess whether all of the necessary documents have been included in the application. For national applications, an examination will normally be conducted within 30 days from the filing date. For international applications designated for Cambodia, however, an examination will not be carried out.

Documents that are often incomplete or missing include the original notarized power of attorney and the certified copy of a trademark application in another country in the case that a priority registration under the Paris Convention is claimed. If documents are incomplete or missing, the DIPR’s registrar usually makes an informal request for the complete or missing documents to be submitted through local agents without specifying a deadline.

If the request is not complied with and the attempts of the DIPR’s registrar to follow up with the local agents are unsuccessful, the registrar issues a Notice of Formal Examination with a compliance deadline of 45 days from the date of receipt. A failure to comply by the deadline or request an extension for a further 45 days from the granting date will cause the application to be deemed as withdrawn. An Acknowledgement of Filing Instruction will be issued when the documents are complete.

Substantive Examination

A substantive examination of the trademark application will then be conducted on absolute and relative grounds, and either a conditional acceptance or rejection may be issued. In the case of conditional acceptance, the registrar usually requests a disclaimer for nondistinctive elements. The applicant can either submit the disclaimer or a modification of the disclaimer by deleting any nondistinctive elements to allow the applied-for trademark to become registrable.

Rejections are normally based on absolute rather than relative grounds. Use and registrations of the same mark in Cambodia and/or other countries are considered to determine whether a trademark is registrable. Modifying a mark by adding a distinctive element is helpful to overcome rejection.

The rejection or conditional acceptance that results from the substantive examination stage must be complied with or contended within 60 days from the receiving date. An extension of 60 days from the granting date is available. In Cambodia, an extension may be requested several times without providing a reason.

If a mark is registrable, a Notice of Acceptance of Mark Registration will be issued. A registration fee must be paid within 60 days from the issuing date—otherwise, the mark will be rejected. A Certificate of Registration will be issued after the payment of the registration fee. It is usually issued within six to ten months after the filing date. The protection lasts for ten years from the filing date and is renewable for an additional ten years each time. An application to renew a mark’s registration can be made within six months before the registration expires and a grace period of six months is allowed.

Publication

Trademark registrations are published by the DIPR. A Notice of Opposition accompanied by supporting evidence can be filed within 90 days from the date of publication. To rebut the opposition, the registrant needs to file a counterstatement accompanied by supporting evidence within 90 days from the receiving date of the Notice of Opposition. Opposition proceedings in Cambodia are uncommon in part because it is difficult for the public to obtain the country’s Trademark Journal. However, the Trademark Journal can now be obtained from the DIPR’s website, and so this may change.

Renewal

To renew a registration, an affidavit of use/non-use must be filed every fifth to sixth year from the registration or renewal date. The Division of International Registration of Marks of Cambodia has the duty to remind applicants of the use or non-use of marks, and this process will still apply to international trademark registrations after the new regulations come into effect. If an affidavit of use/non-use is not filed, the registered mark will be removed from the register. In practice, however, Cambodia’s registrars have never removed a registered mark from the register.

Under the new regulations, filing will be mandatory at the time of renewal if a mark is not recorded at the fifth to sixth year. Even so, it is highly recommended to file an affidavit of non-use in time, as this can eliminate the risk of facing a non-use cancellation action. Owners of national and international registrations should closely observe the deadline to secure their marks.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More