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 13, 2012

IP Enforcement Training for Government Officers in Laos and Cambodia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

As trade barriers continue to be reduced in ASEAN, a larger number of counterfeit products are likely to be circulated within the region. It is therefore important for companies to ensure that their intellectual property enforcement training is not only focused on government officials in relatively developed countries like Thailand, but also reaches the authorities in emerging markets, such as Laos and Cambodia, where an increasing number of counterfeit goods can be found.

With this in mind, Tilleke & Gibbins cooperated with several of our major clients to hold IP enforcement training sessions for government officers in Vientiane, Laos, on September 14, 2012, and in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, on October 11, 2012. These were groundbreaking events, as they represented the first time that key government agencies have collaborated with private companies to cohost events dedicated to IP enforcement training in these countries.

Laos

Tilleke & Gibbins and four famous brand owners, including companies focused on alcoholic beverages, cosmetics, consumer products, and luxury goods, arranged a training seminar intended to raise general IP knowledge and awareness among Laos government officers and educate them on how to identify genuine and counterfeit products.

The training was useful in facilitating an exchange of experiences among the government officers and brand owners when pursuing enforcement actions against infringers, while also promoting cooperation between the public and private sectors. It also provided the officers with information about whom they should contact when they find suspected counterfeit products or when they have any problems concerning suspicious goods.

The 81 IP enforcement officers in attendance—representing a diverse range of government agencies, such as the Laos Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), tax officials, economic police officers, prosecutors, court officials, and commerce and industry representatives—responded positively to the training and expressed interest in the products that were displayed in the exhibition.

The training was cohosted by the DIP, Ministry of Science and Technology, in collaboration with Tilleke & Gibbins and the four participating brands. Mr. Sitha Phouyavong, the Director General of the DIP, presided over the event. Recognizing that this was the first such event held by the DIP, Mr. Phouyavong was enthusiastic about the outcome, and informed the audience that he would like to continue arranging this type of training in Laos, as it provides a unique learning opportunity for the dedicated officers who carry out IP enforcement in the country.

Cambodia

Following the success of the Laos event, a similar IP enforcement training session in October brought together 78 officers from Cambodian government agencies such as the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, the Department of Intellectual Property Rights, the Department of Customs (CAMCONTROL), the Ministry of Industry, Mines, and Energy, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, the Ministry of Justice, and the Department of Anti-Economic Crimes Prosecutors.

Seven of the most recognizable brands in the world participated in the Cambodia training, including companies focused on alcoholic beverages, apparel, consumer products, luxury goods, and more.

The training session was cohosted by the Secretariat of the National Committee for Intellectual Property Rights and the Department of Intellectual Property Rights, Ministry of  Commerce, in collaboration with Tilleke & Gibbins. His Excellency Var Roth San, Advisor to the Ministry of Commerce and Head of the Secretariat of National Committee for Intellectual Property Rights (NCIPR), Director of Intellectual Property Rights, the Ministry of Commerce, presided over the event.

Impact

Both events attracted a great deal of media attention. In Laos, the Vientiane Times described the success of the seminar in creating conditions favorable for trading activities and helping to develop a more investment-friendly climate. In Cambodia, the event was featured in two newspapers, both of which emphasized the need for such training and how local authorities have not previously been fully equipped to detect infringement, nor have they been educated on the impact of enforcement of IP rights.

In addition to media coverage, the brands that participated in the events were able to educate and develop goodwill with key government authorities, and they expect to see a tangible impact in the enforcement of their rights in each country. Given the level of interest among the government officers, these may be just the first in a series of training sessions in these countries, as Laos and Cambodia push to strengthen their IP enforcement regimes.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
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