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​ 

June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
June 9, 2026
On April 28, 2026, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) issued Notification No. 18/2026 introducing the new Foreign Remittance Business Regulations. The new regulations apply to companies intending to operate foreign remittance businesses in Myanmar that are not licensed banks, non-bank financial institutions, or other financial institutions. The regulations supersede and replace the previous regulatory framework governing foreign remittance businesses under CBM Notification No. 21/2019. While the overall structure remains familiar, the new regulations introduce more detailed requirements for licensing, operations, reporting, and compliance, with a stronger focus on transparency and regulatory oversight. Broader Licensing Requirements Under the new regulations, applicants must submit detailed business plans describing the use of information technology and mobile platforms, along with clear plans for handling remittances from workers abroad and resolving customer complaints. Financial Thresholds and Reporting Requirements The baseline financial thresholds remain unchanged. Licensees must maintain a security deposit of MMK 100 million in an escrow account, along with a separate revolving fund dedicated solely to remittance operations. The new regulations introduce more structured reporting obligations. Licensees are now required to submit daily remittance transaction data by the next business day before noon, in addition to monthly and periodic reporting requirements. Foreign bank account statements must also be submitted regularly, and licensees must provide updates on business operations every six months. Strengthened AML and CFT Framework The new regulations place a greater emphasis on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter financing of terrorism (CFT), with tighter controls over management changes. Any changes in shareholding, share transfers, or the appointment of key management personnel such as the managing director require prior approval from the CBM. Licensing Fees and Validity The new regulations increase licensing costs, while maintaining the same validity period of three years. The new regulations provide more detailed grounds for suspension and
Read More
June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
Read More