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

August 24, 2015

Cambodia’s Trademark Registration Procedures

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Madrid Protocol entered into force in Cambodia on June 5, 2015. Consequently, trademark protection can now be obtained through national and international channels. While the Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR) plans to issue new regulations on the Madrid System’s registration procedures—and so the procedures may be subject to change—there has been no official announcement to date. Therefore, this article discusses Cambodia’s current trademark registration procedures to help foreign applicants effectively manage their trademark portfolios.

Formal Examination

After a trademark application is filed, the World Intellectual Property Organization will conduct a formal examination to assess whether all of the necessary documents have been included in the application. For national applications, an examination will normally be conducted within 30 days from the filing date. For international applications designated for Cambodia, however, an examination will not be carried out.

Documents that are often incomplete or missing include the original notarized power of attorney and the certified copy of a trademark application in another country in the case that a priority registration under the Paris Convention is claimed. If documents are incomplete or missing, the DIPR’s registrar usually makes an informal request for the complete or missing documents to be submitted through local agents without specifying a deadline.

If the request is not complied with and the attempts of the DIPR’s registrar to follow up with the local agents are unsuccessful, the registrar issues a Notice of Formal Examination with a compliance deadline of 45 days from the date of receipt. A failure to comply by the deadline or request an extension for a further 45 days from the granting date will cause the application to be deemed as withdrawn. An Acknowledgement of Filing Instruction will be issued when the documents are complete.

Substantive Examination

A substantive examination of the trademark application will then be conducted on absolute and relative grounds, and either a conditional acceptance or rejection may be issued. In the case of conditional acceptance, the registrar usually requests a disclaimer for nondistinctive elements. The applicant can either submit the disclaimer or a modification of the disclaimer by deleting any nondistinctive elements to allow the applied-for trademark to become registrable.

Rejections are normally based on absolute rather than relative grounds. Use and registrations of the same mark in Cambodia and/or other countries are considered to determine whether a trademark is registrable. Modifying a mark by adding a distinctive element is helpful to overcome rejection.

The rejection or conditional acceptance that results from the substantive examination stage must be complied with or contended within 60 days from the receiving date. An extension of 60 days from the granting date is available. In Cambodia, an extension may be requested several times without providing a reason.

If a mark is registrable, a Notice of Acceptance of Mark Registration will be issued. A registration fee must be paid within 60 days from the issuing date—otherwise, the mark will be rejected. A Certificate of Registration will be issued after the payment of the registration fee. It is usually issued within six to ten months after the filing date. The protection lasts for ten years from the filing date and is renewable for an additional ten years each time. An application to renew a mark’s registration can be made within six months before the registration expires and a grace period of six months is allowed.

Publication

Trademark registrations are published by the DIPR. A Notice of Opposition accompanied by supporting evidence can be filed within 90 days from the date of publication. To rebut the opposition, the registrant needs to file a counterstatement accompanied by supporting evidence within 90 days from the receiving date of the Notice of Opposition. Opposition proceedings in Cambodia are uncommon in part because it is difficult for the public to obtain the country’s Trademark Journal. However, the Trademark Journal can now be obtained from the DIPR’s website, and so this may change.

Renewal

To renew a registration, an affidavit of use/non-use must be filed every fifth to sixth year from the registration or renewal date. The Division of International Registration of Marks of Cambodia has the duty to remind applicants of the use or non-use of marks, and this process will still apply to international trademark registrations after the new regulations come into effect. If an affidavit of use/non-use is not filed, the registered mark will be removed from the register. In practice, however, Cambodia’s registrars have never removed a registered mark from the register.

Under the new regulations, filing will be mandatory at the time of renewal if a mark is not recorded at the fifth to sixth year. Even so, it is highly recommended to file an affidavit of non-use in time, as this can eliminate the risk of facing a non-use cancellation action. Owners of national and international registrations should closely observe the deadline to secure their marks.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

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
Read More
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
Read More
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