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

February 29, 2016

Parallel Imports in Cambodia

Informed Counsel

Parallel imports—that is, genuine, noncounterfeit products imported into a country without permission of the intellectual property owner—are a systemic problem in Cambodia. Imported from neighboring countries without the authorization of legitimate manufacturers, parallel imports are sold on the “grey market” at prices which can be much lower than products imported through official channels. This causes significant difficulties for local affiliates and legitimate business owners, who struggle to compete with the lower prices. In addition, brand owners are unable to control how parallel imports are marketed and supported with after-sale services, which can tarnish their reputation.

In Cambodia, protection against parallel imports is available through trademark registration. Business owners who are in competition with merchants that deal with parallel imports should therefore familiarize themselves with Cambodia’s Trademark Law. This article provides an overview of how protection against parallel imports can be obtained under Cambodia’s Trademark Law.

Article 11 (a) of Cambodia’s Trademark Law confers a right on registered trademark owners to the exclusive use of their trademarks in relation to goods their marks are registered for, and they can consent to others using their marks.

Unlike most ASEAN countries, Cambodia abides by a national exhaustion doctrine and therefore prohibits parallel imports. Under the national exhaustion doctrine, a trademark owner’s rights are not exhausted until the first legitimate sale within the domestic market. For example, a product that was sold with the trademark owner’s consent in Country A could not be imported and resold in Country B without the trademark owner’s consent to that resale. This grants the registered trademark owner more control over the distribution of its products in markets that adhere to the national doctrine.

This doctrine is based on the idea that a registered trademark owner should be able to benefit from promoting its product in each separate market. The doctrine is especially welcomed by local distributors and affiliates, who obtain a license from the trademark owner and invest in promotions, warranties, and other services to build a legitimate domestic business. The reward is their first sale, and afterward, their rights are exhausted.

The national exhaustion doctrine is reflected in Article 11 (c) of Cambodia’s Trademark Law, which states the following:

“The rights conferred by registration of a mark shall not extend to acts in respect of articles which have been put on the market in the Kingdom of Cambodia  by the registered owner or with his or her consent.”  [Emphasis added]

The language in Article 11 (c) clearly implies that a foreign sale does not exhaust the trademark owner’s rights, because foreign sales do not take place “in the Kingdom of Cambodia.” Therefore, the unauthorized use of a trademark through parallel imports in Cambodia is an infringement of a registered trademark owner’s intellectual property rights.

Although there is an implied prohibition of parallel imports, uncertainties remain about actual enforcement against parallel imports under Cambodia’s Trademark Law. While Article 11 (b) of the Trademark Law allows a trademark owner to institute court proceedings against an infringer, the chapter on penalties for infringement only addresses imitation and counterfeit goods; it does not provide penalties for noncounterfeit parallel imports. Therefore, as part of the enforcement process, the Economic Police can seize imitation and counterfeit goods but it is unclear whether noncounterfeit parallel imports can be seized.

To further obfuscate matters, in Cambodia, judicial decisions are rarely published and therefore case law on trademark infringement is scarce. However, there is one publicized case in September 2010 involving the seizure of parallel imported beer from Vietnam. In that case an internationally renowned beer company cooperated with its local distributor, which had an exclusive contract to import the company’s beer into Cambodia, and convinced the Cambodian authorities to seize the parallel imported beer. It is unclear if damages or any other remedies were awarded.

To obtain protection against parallel imports, brand owners should register their trademark. They should also submit an affidavit of use to the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) in Cambodia five years after the initial registration and renew registration after ten years to maintain protection over their trademark.

In licensing trademark rights to a local distributor, brand owners are strongly advised to register their licensing agreement with the DIP. Article 52 of the Trademark Law states that a reference to the licensed distributor will be published, allowing the distributor to uphold its licensed rights against third parties. Although the Trademark Law clearly stipulates that a trademark registration is public and any use of a trademark requires a trademark owner’s consent, a public record of a distributorship strengthens a case against infringement or unauthorized use. If a trademark covered by a registered license agreement is infringed, the local distributor will have standing to defend its trademark rights. However, if an agreement has not been registered, only the actual trademark owner is able to enforce its rights. For overseas trademark owners, this can be a costly and an uncertain exercise.

DIP officials have indicated that they are willing to cooperate with border authorities to stop parallel imports only when a distributorship agreement is both exclusive and registered. This practice may change in the future, but for now, a trademark owner should register its distributorship agreement (whether exclusive or not) with the DIP to protect against parallel imports and strengthen its enforcement capabilities if the need arises.

The DIP has a proven track record of readily addressing most incidents of intellectual property rights infringement, and we have reason to believe that the same proactive approach may be taken to parallel imports. In the meantime, local distributors and affiliates should seek the advice of local counsel to navigate Cambodia’s Trademark Law and obtain protection against parallel imports to the fullest extent possible.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad