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

May 29, 2017

New Options to Accelerate Patent Registration in Cambodia

Informed Counsel

Cambodia’s patent system is still relatively young, with the Law on Patents, Utility Model Certificates, and Industrial Designs (Law on Patents) enacted in 2003. But over the past two years, the Ministry of Industry and Handicrafts (MIH) has taken important steps to expedite patent protection.

Cambodia has granted 17 patents, according to the Patent Office. While that number may seem small by international standards, it is important to understand that 10 of those patents were granted in 2016 and 6 were granted to date in 2017, so there is a real trend toward facilitating patent protection.

Although Cambodia lacks the infrastructure to examine patent applications, the MIH has made it possible to obtain granted patents in Cambodia through a number of agreements with other governments, with accelerated processes that can be completed in months, not years. These agreements are discussed in further detail below. 

Re-registration of Singapore Patents and Designs

On January 20, 2015, the MIH entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on the Cooperation in Industrial Property with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) to make it possible for holders of Singapore-granted patents to obtain protection in Cambodia under a streamlined re-registration process. To implement this process, the Prakas on Re-registration of Singapore Patents in Cambodia was adopted and became effective in July 2016.

There is no deadline to re-register a Singapore-granted patent in Cambodia, but the Singapore patent must:

  • Be in force at the time that the re-registration request was filed;
  • Have a filing date on or after February 11, 2003; and,
  • Be patentable in Cambodia as indicated under Articles 4 and 9 of the Law on Patents.

It is notable that Cambodia granted its first patent after the MIH entered into this memorandum of understanding with IPOS.

Facilitating Grant of Japanese Patents and Designs

The Cooperation for Facilitating Patent Grant (CPG) program between the MIH and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) will allow applicants to request accelerated decisions on patent applications filed in Cambodia if their patent has previously been examined and granted in Japan.

In order to participate in the CPG program, the following requirements must be met:

  • There must be a Japanese patent application which has the same earliest date (whether a priority date or a filing date) as the MIH patent application;
  • The corresponding Japanese patent application has been granted by the JPO; and
  • The claims in the MIH patent application have been amended to be the same as one or more claims in the corresponding Japanese patent application granted.

After verifying that all requirements have been met, it takes approximately two to three months for an MIH patent application to be granted.

Patent Cooperation Treaty

Cambodia became the 151st contracting state of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) on September 8, 2016, with the treaty entering into force in the country on December 8, 2016. Thus, any international patent application filed on or after December 8, 2016, will automatically include the designation of Cambodia and will automatically elect any demand filed in Cambodia.

Furthermore, nationals and residents of Cambodia are entitled, as of December 8, 2016, onward, to file international applications under the PCT. A local applicant in Cambodia can select to conduct patent searches with the IPOS, JPO, or the European Patent Office (EPO) when filing an international application.

Under the PCT, a current holder of an international application filed in a member country has 30 months from the initial priority date of their application to decide which other member countries they would like to seek patent protection in.

Validation of European Patents

Cambodia signed an Agreement on Validation of European Patents with the EPO on January 23, 2017, and the agreement will enter into force on July 1, 2017. Cambodia will be the first Asian country to validate/recognize European patents in its territory, placing it among 43 countries worldwide to allow protection with a single European patent application.

European patent applicants who wish to validate their patents in Cambodia on or after July 1, 2017, will be able to benefit from the new procedures, which involve filing a request for validation with the EPO and paying a validation fee within six months of the date of publication of the European search report in the European Patent Bulletin or within the required period for gaining entry into the European national phase of the qualified PCT international application.

Exceptions for Pharmaceutical Patents

Pharmaceutical patents are subject to a notable exception under all of the patent-granting methods described above. Article 4 of the Law on Patents excludes pharmaceutical products from patent protection in Cambodia until January 2016. However, since Cambodia is a least-developed country, the World Trade Organization’s Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Council for TRIPS) has decided that Cambodia is not obligated to provide protection to pharmaceutical-related patents until 2033.

Although Cambodia has not amended its Law on Patents to reflect the extension granted by the Council for TRIPS, the MIH anticipates that changes to the law may occur soon. The MIH is therefore reluctant to accept applications for pharmaceutical-related patents, and is likely to reject such applications altogether.

Despite a few limitations, accelerated patent registration via the IPOS, JPO, PCT, and EPO channels has great potential to facilitate increased intellectual property protection 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