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

June 24, 2016

New Procedures to Record Exclusive Distributorships in Cambodia

Subscribe to Updates

On May 31, 2016, the Ministry of Commerce introduced a Prakas  (regulation) on the Procedures to Record and File Permission Letters for Imported Goods Bearing Exclusive Trademarks. For the first time, this regulation sets out the procedures to register an exclusive distributorship at the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR).

Under the Prakas, an exclusive distributorship provides the right to a trademark owner or distributor to import and distribute goods that bear a trademark registered in Cambodia. An exclusive distributorship must be registered at the DIPR for the trademark owner or distributor to enforce their rights against third parties.

A critical feature of the Prakas  that trademark owners and distributors must be aware of is that approval letters issued by the DIPR before the Prakas  was introduced, which lack an express validity period, will become null and void on June 30, 2016—30 days after the Prakas  entered into force. These distribution agreements must be re-registered.

Another notable aspect of the Prakas  is its limited scope. It only applies to goods that: (1) bear a registered trademark; (2) are genuine, noncounterfeit goods; and (3) are new goods, which are not secondhand. Pharmaceutical products were not included in the Prakas.

The Prakas  also introduces provisions related to parallel imports for the first time. Under the Prakas, if a trademark owner or distributor has registered an exclusive distributorship, they can take enforcement actions against parallel imports.

But it is important to note that the regulation does not clarify the actual process to take an enforcement action against parallel imports. The DIPR and Customs may enact provisions that follow previous practice. Before this regulation was introduced, in order to take an enforcement action against parallel imports, a trademark owner or distributor must have successfully registered an exclusive distributorship. The DIPR would then issue an approval letter. On their request, the DIPR would forward a copy of that letter to the Customs Department, which would monitor parallel imports entering the country.

In addition, under the Prakas, the DIPR’s approval letter for an exclusive distributorship agreement is valid for two years. The trademark owner and distributor must renew the approval letter no earlier than three months before the expiry date.

The Prakas  sets out a number of important requirements and procedures to register an exclusive distributorship, as follows:

  • The distributor must be incorporated in Cambodia.
  • To register an exclusive distributorship, the trademark owner and distributor must use a short-form template provided by the DIPR. In this template, the trademark owner assigns the exclusive distributor. This template must be signed by the trademark owner and certified by a notary public or competent authority.
  • The trademark certificates must be attached to the short-form template together with a letter from either the trademark owner or the distributor requesting registration of the exclusive distributorship.
  • Trademark owners or distributors must file the short-form template and additional documentation within three months from signing the template.
  • If the registered distributor wants to completely or partially transfer its exclusive rights, it must obtain written consent from the trademark owner.
  • If an exclusive distributorship is registered with the DIPR, another exclusive distributorship covering the same trademark-bearing goods may not be registered unless the first distributorship has expired.
  • To register an exclusive distributorship over goods bearing the same trademark in different classes of goods, a separate short-form template must be filed that appoints an exclusive distributorship for each class.

While the Prakas  is a positive step forward, many requirements need further clarification. Once the DIPR clarifies these requirements, trademark owners and distributors will be able to enforce their rights more effectively, and it will instill greater confidence in investors.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More