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or request an extension for a further 45 days from the granting date will cause the application to be deemed as withdrawn.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​ 

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