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​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
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
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
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