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

Subscribe to Updates
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 Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 10, 2026
Vietnam has taken a significant step in regulating its e-commerce sector with the issuance of a new decree guiding the country’s recently enacted Law on E-Commerce. Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP, issued on June 30, 2026, and taking effect the following day, addresses mandatory platform policies, registration requirements for offshore platforms, additional obligations on platform operators, and market access conditions for foreign investors. Mandatory Policy Contents The decree sets out detailed guidance on the required contents of various platform policies, covering pricing, payment, display priority, livestream sales, delivery, returns, method of service provision, and service termination and refunds. Clarification of Obligations for Platform Operators The decree provides clarification of the obligations applicable to platform operators. Notably, intermediary e-commerce platform operators with online ordering functions must: Collect specific information to implement electronic identity verification of sellers; Cooperate with regulators by reporting online through the state e-commerce management system and by blocking, suspending, or removing content upon request of a competent authority; Maintain a mechanism to store contract data, including price, product or service information, and parties’ information, for at least three years from the date of contract conclusion; and If qualifying as a “large digital platform” under consumer protection law, maintain an online system for receiving and handling complaints and requests, and comply with enhanced content-removal requirements. Registration Requirements for Offshore Platforms Offshore e-commerce platforms, whether direct-sales, intermediary, social-network-based, or integrated, that conduct e-commerce activity in Vietnam must register with the Ministry of Industry and Trade if the platform: Allows Vietnamese-language selection; Uses a “.vn” domain; or Reaches 100,000 or more transactions with Vietnam-based buyers within a calendar year. Notably, the registration requirement now captures not only traditional intermediary platforms, but also direct-sales platforms. Foreign Investment Conditions Foreign investors holding a controlling interest in an intermediary e-commerce platform, a social media platform
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More