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

November 13, 2012

IP Enforcement Training for Government Officers in Laos and Cambodia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

As trade barriers continue to be reduced in ASEAN, a larger number of counterfeit products are likely to be circulated within the region. It is therefore important for companies to ensure that their intellectual property enforcement training is not only focused on government officials in relatively developed countries like Thailand, but also reaches the authorities in emerging markets, such as Laos and Cambodia, where an increasing number of counterfeit goods can be found.

With this in mind, Tilleke & Gibbins cooperated with several of our major clients to hold IP enforcement training sessions for government officers in Vientiane, Laos, on September 14, 2012, and in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, on October 11, 2012. These were groundbreaking events, as they represented the first time that key government agencies have collaborated with private companies to cohost events dedicated to IP enforcement training in these countries.

Laos

Tilleke & Gibbins and four famous brand owners, including companies focused on alcoholic beverages, cosmetics, consumer products, and luxury goods, arranged a training seminar intended to raise general IP knowledge and awareness among Laos government officers and educate them on how to identify genuine and counterfeit products.

The training was useful in facilitating an exchange of experiences among the government officers and brand owners when pursuing enforcement actions against infringers, while also promoting cooperation between the public and private sectors. It also provided the officers with information about whom they should contact when they find suspected counterfeit products or when they have any problems concerning suspicious goods.

The 81 IP enforcement officers in attendance—representing a diverse range of government agencies, such as the Laos Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), tax officials, economic police officers, prosecutors, court officials, and commerce and industry representatives—responded positively to the training and expressed interest in the products that were displayed in the exhibition.

The training was cohosted by the DIP, Ministry of Science and Technology, in collaboration with Tilleke & Gibbins and the four participating brands. Mr. Sitha Phouyavong, the Director General of the DIP, presided over the event. Recognizing that this was the first such event held by the DIP, Mr. Phouyavong was enthusiastic about the outcome, and informed the audience that he would like to continue arranging this type of training in Laos, as it provides a unique learning opportunity for the dedicated officers who carry out IP enforcement in the country.

Cambodia

Following the success of the Laos event, a similar IP enforcement training session in October brought together 78 officers from Cambodian government agencies such as the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, the Department of Intellectual Property Rights, the Department of Customs (CAMCONTROL), the Ministry of Industry, Mines, and Energy, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, the Ministry of Justice, and the Department of Anti-Economic Crimes Prosecutors.

Seven of the most recognizable brands in the world participated in the Cambodia training, including companies focused on alcoholic beverages, apparel, consumer products, luxury goods, and more.

The training session was cohosted by the Secretariat of the National Committee for Intellectual Property Rights and the Department of Intellectual Property Rights, Ministry of  Commerce, in collaboration with Tilleke & Gibbins. His Excellency Var Roth San, Advisor to the Ministry of Commerce and Head of the Secretariat of National Committee for Intellectual Property Rights (NCIPR), Director of Intellectual Property Rights, the Ministry of Commerce, presided over the event.

Impact

Both events attracted a great deal of media attention. In Laos, the Vientiane Times described the success of the seminar in creating conditions favorable for trading activities and helping to develop a more investment-friendly climate. In Cambodia, the event was featured in two newspapers, both of which emphasized the need for such training and how local authorities have not previously been fully equipped to detect infringement, nor have they been educated on the impact of enforcement of IP rights.

In addition to media coverage, the brands that participated in the events were able to educate and develop goodwill with key government authorities, and they expect to see a tangible impact in the enforcement of their rights in each country. Given the level of interest among the government officers, these may be just the first in a series of training sessions in these countries, as Laos and Cambodia push to strengthen their IP enforcement regimes.

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