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

February 6, 2023

Enforcing IP Rights in Cambodia: Available Customs Measures

Subscribe to Updates

The available options for enforcing intellectual property (IP) in Cambodia have steadily increased over the past years, and both enforcement authorities and IP owners have gained valuable experience in enforcement operations. This experience, alongside new legal developments, has contributed to an increase in successful IP enforcement cases—most notably those involving the police or the courts in Cambodia.

Targeted government policies have further fostered a more robust IP enforcement framework in Cambodia for both local and foreign IP owners alike. These owners collaborate with government actors in a bid to protect their IP in Cambodia and ensure that quality goods reach Cambodia’s consumers. Cambodia’s obligations under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) related to IP and especially IP enforcement will lead to even more positive developments.

Customs Enforcement

Recently, many IP owners have shown particular interest in enforcement opportunities involving Customs in Cambodia, as these IP owners recognize Customs as a key authority in fighting the inflow and outflow of infringing goods.

Customs (officially named the General Department of Customs and Excise) is responsible for monitoring the import and export of goods at border checkpoints, and levying duties and taxes on imports and exports. They facilitate trade, which is key for the private sector and government alike, and they collect taxes that can be used for the government and the public good.

In this role, Customs is an important agency in fighting infringement, either by stopping imports so that the infringing goods do not reach consumers in Cambodia, or by taking action against exports, thereby making Cambodia less desirable as a manufacturing or transit hub for infringing goods. Besides improving the reputation of the country as a destination for investment and business, it can benefit the public as well, because infringing goods are often smuggled or misdeclared to avoid duties and taxes, resulting in a loss for the Cambodian economy.

Although Cambodia does not yet have a Customs trademark recordal system in place, there are still a number of ways Customs can play a key role in any enforcement strategy.  Below we address these available Custom enforcement options with a focus on imports, but most measures also apply for export of goods.

Shipment Clearance Suspension

A very welcome development in recent years is a prakas that covers suspension of shipment clearance for goods that violate intellectual property rights. Prakas No. 196 on the Policy for Suspension of Customs Clearance Procedure of Imports and Exports violating Intellectual Property Rights was issued on March 29, 2021, by the Ministry of Economy & Finance (MEF)—in which Customs is a department.

The prakas specifically addresses goods violating trademarks, geographical indications, copyrights and related IP rights. It sets out how Customs is to handle a request for suspension filed by an IP owner, and it clarifies Customs’ ex-officio powers to suspend shipment clearance for goods they suspect are in violation of intellectual property rights, without the need for a prior complaint or request from the IP owner. These clearly defined ex-officio powers are a great tool for Customs to use in the fight against infringing goods.

After a suspension action based on either a complaint or an ex-officio action, Customs may invite the IP owner to inspect and confirm whether the goods violate their IP rights. If there is sufficient evidence of counterfeiting or other infringement, Customs may initiate a dispute resolution process or refer the matter to court for further action. Customs clearance of the concerned shipment remains suspended pending the outcome of the matter, and the goods may be eventually seized and confiscated by Customs during the process, or by an order of the court, which can also order the destruction of infringing goods in most cases.

While Customs officials arguably already had the power to take ex-officio action, the clarification of this power in Prakas No. 196 gives Customs officer much more legal certainty to take ex-officio action. This should contribute greatly to curbing the flow of infringing goods into and out of Cambodia.

Lastly, the prakas addresses security bonds. In the past there was uncertainty about the legal support to both request a bond and the formula to calculate the bond.. Under the new prakas, Customs has clear legal authority to request a security bond from IP owners for shipments suspended in relation to IP infringement, at 30% of the value of the goods in the suspended shipment (or higher for perishable goods).

Customs has issued official instructions to its officers, including the related forms and guidelines to request suspension of Customs clearance based on the new prakas, marking Customs’ increased focus on fighting the import and export of infringing goods.

In short, the Prakas is a very notable step forward for Customs, as it provides a clear legal framework for them to take action against infringing goods. Moreover, Customs officers have expressed willingness to implement the measures, and they welcome complaints from IP owners.

Parallel Imports and Recording an Exclusive Distributorship

Cambodia’s legal framework prohibits parallel importing of trademarked goods, as per the Law Concerning Marks, Trade Names and Acts of Unfair Competition. Accordingly, this presents an additional enforcement avenue in which Customs can play a key role.

To enforce their IP rights against parallel importing, owners must record an exclusive distributorship in Cambodia with the Ministry of Commerce. This recordal is done by making a series of straightforward filings, which then provides the IP owner and its appointed exclusive distributor with an exclusive and enforceable right to import and distribute the relevant trademarked goods in Cambodia.

A recordal is valid for two years and can be renewed. Notably, IP owners may withdraw a recordal at any time if they wish to terminate the exclusive distributorship.

Once a distributorship is recorded, enforcement actions can be taken when goods are parallel imported or distributed in Cambodia by any entity or individual other than the registered exclusive distributor. The current regulations do not prohibit exclusive distributors from appointing subdistributors, so that effectively the exclusive distributor actually only functions as an exclusive importer, with further distribution rights given to other entities in Cambodia. In such a scenario, the agreements covering these distribution networks should be clearly drafted to evidence what rights the IP owner has given to the exclusive distributor and its subdistributors.

After recording an exclusive distributorship, the Ministry of Commerce shares the recordal information with Customs, which adds the information to the Customs information database they refer to when inspecting shipments.

Checking the importing entity’s name against the database with recorded exclusive distributorships is an easy and straightforward process. Customs officers do not have to verify if the goods are genuine or counterfeit—which can be a difficult determination for officers not familiar with the particular brand of goods. Rather, the officers merely check the name of the importer against the database, and if the goods are not imported by the recorded exclusive distributor, the shipment can be suspended, pending further action.

A welcome practical effect is that measures meant to stop parallel imports may also stop infringing goods imported by parties other than the recorded exclusive distributor. Customs may, in its efforts to curb parallel imports, stop shipments not for the exclusive distributors, and these shipments may very well turn out to be infringing goods, such as counterfeits. Customs may then take action either under the regulations prohibiting parallel imports, or under Prakas No. 196 based on the import of infringing goods, as discussed in the previous section, depending on the circumstances.

This removes the need to make a (sometimes difficult) determination on the genuine or counterfeit nature of the goods. A shipment not imported by the recorded exclusive distributor can be suspended based on potential parallel importing, followed by an invitation to the actual IP owner (or exclusive distributor) to make the determination on the nature of the goods. If the goods are infringing, appropriate action can be taken in accordance with the law. If the goods are parallel imports, Customs can take action against them as well, under a different set of rules.

Engagement with Customs

Although formal Customs recordal is not available in Cambodia, IP owners with information on checkpoints that are often used by shipments of infringing goods can contact the relevant Customs office at the checkpoint to cooperate with the officers there.

If there is sufficient information, Customs may exercise its ex-officio powers to suspend suspect shipments, followed by the IP owner filing an official complaint if the products are confirmed as infringing.

Local Customs officers are generally open to working with IP owners if the information is strong enough to justify suspending or more closely inspecting shipments. However, it is not possible to make a general request that Customs inspect all shipments for an IP owner’s trademarked goods. Nevertheless, with specific information, an IP owner can initiate cooperation and information sharing with Customs, which can be an effective way to stop shipments of infringing goods.

Conclusion

Customs now has additional legislative tools—and the required experience and practice—to increase their enforcement efforts against shipments of infringing goods in Cambodia. Both parallel imports and infringing goods can be stopped if IP owners cooperate with Customs on information sharing and other matters, act promptly on inspection requests, file complaints in support of Customs actions, and provide security bonds as requested under Cambodian law.

Cambodian Customs has shown an eagerness to implement the latest developments and to take action, especially when IP owners actively engage with them. In short, Customs has become a valuable tool in the enforcement arsenal available to IP owners in Cambodia over the past years. Owners may find considerable benefits from including Customs enforcement in their strategy for protecting IP rights in Cambodia.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
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