Cambodia: Administrative trade mark proceedings in Cambodia
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cambodia: Administrative trade mark proceedings in Cambodia

When brand owners face trade mark infringement in Cambodia, they have access to a number of enforcement options to take against infringers and protect their rights. Sending a cease-and-desist letter to an infringer requesting them to stop the infringement is a standard first port of call. If the infringer refuses to comply with the letter's demands, a public notice or warning can be used to help make the public aware of the infringement. Border measures are available to suspend clearance for inspection of alleged counterfeit goods. And of course, criminal and civil actions can be pursued through the police and the courts.

But perhaps the most popular route – and in our view the most transparent and effective – is for a brand owner to initiate administrative proceedings with the Cambodian Department of Intellectual Property Rights (DIPR). This article provides an overview of how administrative proceedings work and why they provide a good option for enforcing trade mark rights.

Initiating a proceeding

There are no specific laws or regulations governing administrative proceedings in Cambodia. Instead, officers at the DIPR abide by a set of informal rules whereby they serve as mediators and facilitate mediation between a trade mark owner and an alleged infringer.

An administrative proceeding has relatively simple procedures and lower costs, compared to the other enforcement options listed above. To initiate an administrative proceeding for trade mark infringement, a formal request must be filed at the DIPR, Ministry of Commerce, which should include an investigation report and supporting evidence that shows the alleged infringer is involved in infringing activities. The fee for a trade mark owner to file an administrative proceeding is KHR 80,000 (US$20). This fee does not include the cost of legal representation, nor does it account for the cost of conducting an investigation or compiling evidence.

The supporting evidence can include certificates of registration; photos, catalogues, and brochures containing the infringed mark; photos of the infringing products on sale in the infringer's shop; purchase receipts showing the name of the shop and describing the purchased product; and actual specimens of the infringing product.

Negotiating commitments

If the evidence supports a prima facie case of infringement, the DIPR's Bureau of Litigation, which deals with administrative proceedings, will send an official letter requesting the infringer to attend the DIPR's office to discuss the dispute and negotiate an end to the infringement. The DIPR's officers act as mediators. At this stage, the DIPR will not order penalties, fines, or the seizure or destruction of counterfeit goods. Instead, the parties can agree to certain commitments.

There are no limitations on the commitments that can be agreed to by the parties. They typically include ceasing importing or selling the infringing products; destroying all inventory of the infringing products and providing evidence of the destruction, or delivering the inventory to the trade mark owner for destruction; disclosing the supply chain; recalling products from the market; and amending the infringer's mark if the dispute involves an issue of similarity. A written undertaking can require the infringer to pay damages, although this is unusual without actual litigation unless the brand owner has a strong case of criminal liability against the infringer.

In practice, infringers rarely ignore the DIPR's invitation to attend negotiations–the government request is usually sufficient to compel them to come to the bargaining table. Typically, negotiations take two to three cycles to complete and culminate in a signed agreement. Administrative proceedings usually generate a positive outcome.

If an infringer ignores the invitation letter, the DIPR normally resends the letter at least three times. If the infringer continues to ignore the request, the act of not attending the administrative proceeding can serve as supporting evidence of infringement in subsequent judicial proceedings. This is the only real consequence that infringers face for ignoring the invitation letter. The DIPR does not have the authority to order penalties, fines or the seizure or destruction of counterfeit goods if the request is ignored.

Pursuing criminal and civil actions

In the event that an infringer fails to live up to its commitments from the administrative proceedings or refuses to take part in the process, brand owners have recourse to both criminal and civil actions through the Cambodian courts. Some brand owners may pursue these actions from the outset to seek a binding judgment against an infringer, rather than attempting resolution through the DIPR at the first stage. But the Cambodian court system often does not generate predictable results, and because of the high success rate and relatively low costs of the DIPR's mediation process, administrative proceedings are viewed as a valuable and transparent avenue for deterring infringement. They should be strongly considered any time a brand faces infringement in Cambodia.

Chea_Sokmean
Ing_Chandavya

Sokmean Chea

Chandavya Ing


Tilleke & GibbinsSupalai Grand Tower, 26th Floor1011 Rama 3 Road, Chongnonsi, YannawaBangkok, Thailand 10120Tel: +66 2653 5555Fax: +66 2653 5678bangkok@tilleke.comwww.tilleke.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers weigh in on the USPTO’s request for comment on the effects of AI on prior art analysis and obviousness determinations
A vast majority of corporates – especially smaller businesses – rely on a trusted referral when instructing external counsel, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Munich Regional Court ruled that Lenovo was an unwilling licensee and had engaged in ‘holdout’ tactics
Technological innovation should play a critical role in advancing sustainable practices, argues Justin Delfino, global head of IP and R&D at Evalueserve
Ewan Grist of Bird & Bird, who acted for Lidl in its trademark victory against Tesco, reveals some of the lessons brand owners can take from the judgment
Dolby’s lawsuit at the Delhi High Court follows a record win by Ericsson earlier this year against the same defendant
Tee Tan, chief information officer at the owner of several IP firms, says to avoid tech just for the sake of it and explains how his company builds in-house tools
Regardless of whether the FTC’s ban on non-competes goes into effect, businesses should stop relying on these agreements
Mary Till, a former legal advisor at the USPTO who has joined Finnegan this week, is looking forward to providing clients with a USPTO perspective
Gift this article