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 17, 2017

Brand Awareness Training in Cambodia and Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Cambodia and Thailand are among the largest markets for counterfeit goods in the ASEAN region. To tackle this problem, it is important to raise awareness about the widespread problems and impacts of counterfeit goods, implement innovative approaches for counterfeit inspection and identification, strengthen private sector partnerships with government agencies, and support more aggressive action against the production and trade of counterfeit goods. In late 2016, Tilleke & Gibbins had the opportunity to assist brand owners with their intellectual property (IP) enforcement efforts by arranging training sessions for government officers in Cambodia and Thailand.

Cambodia

Four years after we organized our first IP training session in Cambodia, Tilleke & Gibbins is continuing our efforts to develop local counterfeit inspection and enforcement capabilities by holding a further training session at the Intercontinental Hotel in Phnom Penh on November 22, 2016.

More than 60 officers from 14 different ministries participated in the training, including those at the front lines of Cambodian IP enforcement—Customs officers, the Economic Police, and Cambodia Import-Export Inspection and Fraud Repression Directorate General (Camcontrol) officers. Most attendees were also members of the National Committee of Intellectual Property Rights, a group established in 2008 to strengthen cross-departmental cooperation for better enforcement of laws and regulations on IP rights. Representatives from seven famous companies in the business of agricultural machinery, apparel, consumer goods, mobile phones, and other products joined the session to provide insights into their brands.

With government officers in Cambodia currently facing challenges in identifying counterfeit products due to limited field experience and lack of information resources, the training helped officers update their knowledge of counterfeit goods and establish working relationships with brand owners, who can provide in-depth expertise and advice when suspected counterfeit goods are found in the future.

Not only did we achieve our main goal of assisting local authorities, but we were also able to strengthen relationships among government agencies, brand owners, and our firm, laying the groundwork for future collaboration. Tilleke & Gibbins already has plans to work with the Counter Counterfeit Committee of Cambodia to organize new IP enforcement activities for a number of clients.

Thailand

For more than a decade, Tilleke & Gibbins has consistently arranged training sessions on product identification in Thailand to help attendees differentiate between genuine and counterfeit goods, with the aim of providing effective techniques on how to inspect the goods of brand owners participating in the events.

In practice, Customs officers regularly seize counterfeit goods at Thailand’s borders under their ex officio capacity, as provided under the Customs Act. Unfortunately, Customs officers have only a short time to detain any suspicious counterfeit goods. To complicate matters further, brand owners may launch a new model of a product or even new packaging designs that contain different points of reference, making it more difficult to distinguish a brand’s genuine product from its counterfeit counterpart. It is therefore important for Customs officers to regularly update their knowledge on how to inspect a wide variety of counterfeit goods.

To assist local authorities, Tilleke & Gibbins arranged two training sessions on December 15-16, 2016—one for 63 Customs officers at Suvarnabhumi Airport and the other for 63 Customs officers at Laem Chabang Customs Port. Representatives from ten leading brands joined the sessions to display their products, including alcoholic beverages, apparel, consumer goods, electric appliances, and more. The Customs officers were enthusiastic in the sessions and had a unique opportunity to learn directly from brand owners and from Tilleke & Gibbins professionals who served as the legal representatives of several global brands.

The director of the Central Service Division, Suvarnabhumi Airport Cargo Clearance Customs Bureau, and the director of Laem Chabang Customs Port both expressed their appreciation for the training events and emphasized that the knowledge received by Customs officers will undoubtedly assist them in their fieldwork. The training was also a good opportunity for Customs officers to meet and gain contact details of brand owners, who can assist in counterfeit suppression work in the future. Both directors recognized Tilleke & Gibbins and our clients for our invaluable training contributions, which underscored the strong cooperation between the Customs Department and the private sector in creating joint solutions to the counterfeiting problem in Thailand.

Enhancing Capabilities

Tilleke & Gibbins shares the objective of all stakeholders to take aggressive legal action against counterfeit goods in the region, and education of government officials on brand awareness and anticounterfeiting techniques is an important starting point for such actions. Our firm may arrange additional IP training sessions in 2017 if the opportunity arises, to help further enhance the capabilities of local authorities and foster collaboration.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
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
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More