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​ 

August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More
August 30, 2024
With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July
Read More
August 7, 2024
A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing
Read More
July 31, 2024
On the afternoon of 19 April 2024, a cramped courtroom at the People’s Court of Hanoi was the setting for the first criminal trial of a case of copyright and related rights infringement in Vietnam, regarding the act of illegal streaming of English Premier League football matches on online platforms. This case is expected to open the door for the criminal prosecution of other cases of copyright and related rights infringement on the internet, an area that has faced numerous difficulties over the past two decades. First criminal case of illegal streaming Vietnamese criminal law has long had provisions in place for criminal handling of copyright infringement crimes, specifically in Article 131 of the 1999 Penal Code. However, more than 20 years after this law took effect, and even though Vietnam enacted the 2015 Penal Code with subsequent amendments, these regulations have remained mainly a law on paper only, and many significant and serious cases causing great frustration for rights holders and society have not been criminally prosecuted. The case in question was initiated by a denunciation of the BestBuyIPTV subscription service by the Football Association Premier League Limited (the “Premier League”) and the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (“ACE”), a coalition of global entertainment companies and film studios dedicated to combating digital piracy and copyright infringement. BestBuyIPTV had illegally streamed Premier League matches and other protected works without authorization of the rights holders. In 2023, after an extensive investigation, the Cybersecurity and High-Tech Crime Prevention Division (PA05) and the Police Department for Investigating Corruption, Smuggling, and Economic Crimes (PC03) of the Hanoi police brought a case for criminal copyright infringement, pursuant to Article 225 of the 2015 Penal Code, against the offender, an individual named Le Hai Nam, consolidating the dossiers for the People’s Procuracy to indict this
Read More