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 12, 2022
Before the issuance in late 2019 of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand’s Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses, which took effect in February 2020, Thai law made little mention of franchising as a business model—despite the great popularity of franchising in the country. The guidelines, which were issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), partly made up for the absence of a single, codified franchising law in the country and offered valuable direction on how franchisors and franchisees should operate in compliance with Thai law. One of the most significant conditions introduced by the original guidelines in February 2020 was a requirement for franchisors to provide a right of first refusal to their existing franchisees before opening a new franchise outlet within current franchisees’ operating vicinity. An update to the guidelines addressing the right of first refusal was issued in August 2020. Most recently, a second update was announced on July 13, 2021. It was published in the Government Gazette on August 19, 2021, and came into force on the following day. The August 2021 update further revised this provision, and the updated guidelines now adopt a less restrictive approach for franchisors in relation to this first-refusal requirement. Under the updated guidelines, a franchisor who decides to open a new outlet, whether it will be operated by the franchisor or by another franchisee or person, must notify the existing franchisee located in closest proximity to the intended location, and provide the franchisee with a right of first refusal for a period of 30 days. However, the franchisor does not have to provide the closest franchisee with a right of first refusal if the franchisee’s existing performance does not meet the franchisor’s criteria as specified and communicated to the franchisee in advance. In determining what
Read More
July 11, 2022
Background In Thailand, as in other countries, there are many possible legal grounds for the cancellation of registered trademarks. The non-use ground, under Section 63 of the Trademark Act, has long been one of the most challenging grounds for petitioners to achieve. Section 63 provides that any interested party can ask the Board of Trademarks to cancel a trademark registration if they can provide proof that, at the time of the application, the proprietor of the mark had no intent of using it for the designated goods. The party requesting cancellation must also show that, in the three years prior to the cancellation request, the mark had not been used in good faith for the goods for which it is registered. The proprietor of the trademark can defend itself against the cancellation request by proving that non-use was unintentional and was due to “exceptional circumstances in the trade”. One of the reasons why non-use cancellation has been challenging in Thailand is that the Trademark Act does not prescribe the exact timeframe within which a mark must be used after it has been registered. Therefore, in some cases the Board of Trademarks found that the mere argument that the trademark owner had plans to use the mark in the future was suf cient to dismiss a non-use cancellation petition, even though the owner did not provide any proof to verify this. Recent Board of Trademarks decision In this case, a petitioner’s trademark application was rejected by the trademark registrar for being confusingly similar to a registered trademark. The petitioner then led a request for non-use cancellation against the cited trademark. At the same time, the petitioner decided to remove from its own trademark application the services that appeared to overlap with some of the goods connected to the registered trademark.
Read More
July 6, 2022
Patent is an essential piece of the amended Law on Intellectual Property (“Amended IP Law”), which was passed by the National Assembly of Vietnam on June 16, 2022, and will take effect on January 1, 2023 (except for the regulation on protection of experimental data for agrochemical products, which will take delayed effect on January 14, 2024). Among the amended and supplemented contents of the Amended IP Law, there are notable patent-related amendments to Article 60 on assessing the novelty of inventions and Article 96 on grounds for invalidating patent protection titles. We discuss these changes below. Secret Prior Art Under Article 60.1 A significant amendment to Clause 1, Article 60 of the Amended IP Law on the novelty of inventions is to broaden the scope under which an invention can be considered to have lost its novelty. For the first time in Vietnam, “secret prior art” –a patent application with an earlier filing date or priority date but published on or after the filing date or priority date of an examined patent application – is introduced as a prior art document. In the diagram above, at the time of filing of the A2 application, secret prior art A1 has been filed but not yet published, making it inaccessible to the public. At this point, only the A1 applicant and the IP Office are aware of the A1 application. Under the current provisions of the 2005 IP Law, as amended in 2009 and 2019, the A1 patent application is not eligible to be a prior art document when assessing the novelty of A2. However, based on the “first-to-file principle” and the principle of priority, the IP Office has still had other approaches to bar the patentability of an A2 patent application if there is such an A1 application. By
Read More
July 5, 2022
The recently approved comprehensive revisions to Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (“Amended IP Law”) mark the most significant changes to Vietnam’s intellectual property regime since the last time the IP Law was revised more than a decade ago, in 2009, affecting 80 out of 222 articles and introducing 12 new ones. The National Assembly of Vietnam approved the Amended IP Law on June 16, 2022, and, except for a few provisions, it will take effect on January 1, 2023. Some notable points of the revised law regarding trademark matters include: 1. Protection of Sound Marks To fulfill Vietnam’s commitments as part of the CPTPP, the Amended IP Law adds sound marks to the list of signs eligible for protection as trademarks. However, to more easily examine these non-traditional marks, the law provides that sound marks must be able to be presented in graphical representations. Article 73.7 was also supplemented to include a ground for refusal of sound marks that comprise “copies [in whole or part] of copyrighted works, unless with consent from the copyright holders”. This provision is wide-reaching and may be used in many cases apart from those involving sound marks, and it is expected to better secure copyright in broad terms. 2. Definition of Well-Known Mark Article 4.20 modifies the definition of a well-known mark to mean one that is “widely known by the relevant sectors of the public in the territory of Vietnam” instead of the old general definition of “widely known by consumers throughout the territory of Vietnam”. This new definition is in line with international standards, and with this positive step, and the chances of trademark owners having their marks recognized as well-known marks in Vietnam should increase. The Amended IP Law also clarifies that well-known status must be acquired before the filing date
Read More