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

November 26, 2019

Franchising in Cambodia

Franchising Insider

This article was first published on Franchising Insider—a blog maintained by US Law Firm Quarles & Brady LLP—and was co-authored by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office; Mealtey Oeurn, an advisor in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh Office; and Robert A. Smith, a partner in the Washington, DC, office of Quarles & Brady LLP.

Introduction

Cambodia has a rapidly growing economy with a sustained impressive growth rate of 7.7% between 1995 and 2018 (World Bank, Cambodia Overview). During that time, Cambodia has transitioned from being classified by the World Bank as a low-income country to a lower middle-income country. In addition, a sizable middle class had developed, particularly in Phnom Penh. Along with economic growth, an expanding middle class, and a welcoming investment framework, Cambodia has witnessed the entrance of a number of international franchises, including Burger King, Carl’s Jr., Circle K, Cold Stone Creamery, Domino’s Pizza, Krispy Kreme, L’Occitane, Levi’s, Lotteria, Pandora, and Starbucks, among others.

Regulation

Cambodia has not enacted any comprehensive franchise laws; therefore, franchising is largely governed by laws of general application that implicate franchise issues. While the Ministry of Commerce is in the midst of developing a Law on Commercial Contracts, which purportedly contains a section on franchise agreements, there is no clear timeline for the enactment of this law. In the meantime, franchising is primarily governed by the following laws:

  • The Civil Code
  • The Law Concerning Marks, Trade Names and Acts of Unfair Competition (Trademark Law)
  • The Notification on the Recordal of License Contracts and Franchise Contracts, dated March 12, 2015 (Franchise Contract Notification)

For franchise agreements prepared in a foreign jurisdiction, franchisors should carefully localize the following provisions to ensure they are enforceable in Cambodia:

  • Dispute resolution clauses
  • Intellectual property provisions
  • Guarantee provisions
  • Non-complete obligations
  • Real estate provisions
  • Tax related clauses

In particular, under Article 19 of the Trademark Law, any license agreement for trademarks, including a franchise agreement that contains a trademark license, must impose on the licensor an obligation to effectively control the quality of the goods or services in connection with the mark, otherwise, the contract will not be valid.

In theory, the Trademark Law requires all trademark license agreements to be registered with the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR). However, in practice, it is only necessary to register a trademark license agreement, or a franchise agreement that contains a trademark license, if the licensor wants to allow the licensee the right to enforce the agreement against third parties (e.g., persons in Cambodia infringing the licensor’s trademarks).

Disclosure and Misrepresentation

While Cambodian law does not require pre-contract disclosure, all information provided in a franchise agreement must be accurate. Under the Civil Code, if a party enters into a contract on the basis of another party’s misrepresentation, that party is entitled to rescind the contract and seek damages from the party who made the misrepresentation. In addition, under the same legislation, a personal guarantee is invalid if the guarantor was not fully informed of all material information regarding the guaranteed obligation at the time that the guarantee was signed.

Intellectual Property

Franchisors typically grant franchisees the right to use trademarks, systems, logos, advertisements, and know-how in connection with the franchised business. Registration issues related to the grant of rights in trademarks, patents and industrial designs, and copyrights, registration issues are discussed below.

Trademarks

Trademark owners are encouraged to register their trademarks with the DIPR to receive protection under Cambodian law. To maintain registration and to avoid cancellation, the owner of the trademark must file an Affidavit of Use/Non-Use for the mark within one year following the fifth anniversary of the date of registration, or within one year following the fifth year from the renewal date (if the registration has already been renewed). A trademark is registered for a term of 10 years from the date of filing the application and can be renewed every 10 years. If the trademark registration is not renewed, trademark protection will lapse. In 2015, Cambodia became a member of the Madrid Protocol, thus trademark rights holders can initiate a trademark registration application at their national or regional intellectual property office, if that country is also a party to the system.

Patent and Industrial Designs

Patent and industrial design licenses must be registered with the Ministry of Industrial and Handicrafts. In addition, Cambodia has entered into international agreements with China, the European Union, and Singapore on validating patents first registered in those countries.

Copyrights

Foreign copyrights are generally not protected in Cambodia unless the work is (i) created by a person who is resident in Cambodia, (ii) created by a person who is a legal person with a registered office in Cambodia, or (iii) first published abroad and is registered in Cambodia within 30 days of the first communication to the public. Therefore, franchisors should understand that manuals and other similar materials may not be protected in Cambodia through copyrights, and other means of protection (i.e., by way of trade secrets) should be sought.

Competition Law

Cambodia does not currently have any specific competition legislation. Although the Ministry of Commerce is currently working on a draft Competition Law, there is no timeline for its enactment.  Even though there is no competition law in Cambodia, it is common for foreign companies to insert non-competition provisions in their franchise agreements to restrict franchisees from engaging in any activities that compete with the franchisor.

Choice of Law and Dispute Resolution

Choosing a foreign country’s law as the governing law for a franchise agreement does not contravene Cambodian law. In practice, however, local courts may be unwilling to apply foreign law to disputes before them. In addition, certain issues (i.e., advertisement approval requirements, real estate and zoning) can only be governed by Cambodian law.

Foreign franchisors should carefully consider the dispute resolution mechanism in their franchise agreements. Foreign court judgments are not enforceable in Cambodia, unless, among other requirements, there is a guarantee of reciprocity between Cambodia and the foreign country in which the court is based. To date, Cambodia has only entered into such an agreement with Vietnam, meaning that virtually all foreign court judgments will not be enforceable in Cambodia.

Cambodia is, however, a member of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and foreign arbitration awards are, therefore, enforceable in Cambodia. Cambodia also has its own domestic arbitration institution called the National Commercial Arbitration Center. Accordingly, arbitration is the preferred method of dispute resolution in Cambodia.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation