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 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
Read More
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
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More