Authored By: Sindy CHES
Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University (Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3)
Introduction
Ever heard of French Champagne, Swiss watches, or Italian Parmigiano Reggiano? These products represent not only their places of origin but also specific standards of quality and reputation that are recognized worldwide. Such distinctive names are known as geographical indications (GIs). Through these indications, consumers are able to identify products associated with particular qualities, reputation, and authenticity, while producers gain recognition and added economic value for their goods. However, how can these indications contribute to the economic development of a developing country such as Cambodia? Is Cambodia’s current approach to protecting GIs appropriate for a developing country?
The role of GIs in developing countries has attracted significant scholarly attention. In Intellectual Property Futures: Exploring the Global Landscape of IP Law and Policy, David J. Watson argues that the adoption of sui generis GI protection systems by developing countries is more likely to facilitate the inclusion of GI protection obligations in trade agreements with the European Union (EU) than to generate substantial benefits for the developing countries themselves[1]. Likewise, Cambodia’s efforts to promote GIs have formed part of its medium-term cooperation with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which featured products such as Kampot pepper and Kampot durian in its 2016 publication[2]. While these studies provide valuable analyses of Cambodian GIs from an international perspective, this article seeks to contribute to the discussion by examining Cambodia’s GI regime from a Cambodian perspective. The views expressed are solely those of the author and should not be interpreted as reflecting any official position.
To achieve this objective, the article first introduces the Cambodian legal framework governing GIs for readers who may be unfamiliar with Cambodia and its legal system (I). It then traces the development of the Cambodian GI regime over time and compares it with those of selected Asian countries (II). The article subsequently examines the principal challenges affecting the protection and enforcement of GIs in Cambodia (III). Finally, it evaluates the contribution that GIs can make to Cambodia’s long-term economic development (IV).
Cambodian GI legal framework as the foundation for its development
In Cambodia, GIs are protected through a dedicated legislative framework consisting primarily of the Law on Geographical Indications (2014) and the Ministerial Regulation (Prakas) on the Procedures for the Registration and Protection of Geographical Indications (2016). Cambodia’s GI regime is further complemented by its international obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications, adopted in 2015.
Although the Cambodian Law on GIs was enacted only in 2014, efforts to protect GIs began several years earlier. Notably, Kampot pepper and Kampong Speu palm sugar were registered by the Ministry of Commerce as Cambodia’s first GIs in 2010, reflecting the government’s early commitment to promoting products whose reputation and quality are closely linked to their geographical origin.
Like other intellectual property rights, geographical indications must be registered to benefit from legal protection. Under Article 7 of the Law on GIs (hereinafter “the Law”), an application must be submitted by a Geographical Indication Association established by a group of producers as a non-profit association recognized by the Ministry of Commerce. The application is then subject to a substantive examination to determine whether it satisfies the legal requirements for registration.
Pursuant to Article 11 of the Law, the Ministry of Commerce verifies the accuracy of the information provided in the application, including the geographical production area and the specifications of the product. Registration may be refused where the indication is contrary to law, morality, or public order, or is likely to mislead consumers as to the product’s origin, quality, or characteristics. It also cannot consist of a plant variety or animal breed name that would cause confusion, or a term that has become generic.
Where all statutory requirements are fulfilled, the Ministry of Commerce registers the GI and issues a certificate of registration. Following publication in the Official Gazette, interested parties may file an opposition within 90 days. Upon completion of the registration process, the GI enjoys legal protection under Cambodian law.
The Law provides broad protection against acts that undermine the reputation or authenticity of registered GIs. Pursuant to Article 38 of the Law, prohibited acts include the unauthorized use, imitation, evocation, or translation of a registered GI, even where the true origin of the product is indicated or accompanied by expressions such as “style,” “type,” “method,” “manner,” or “imitation.” The Law also prohibits false or misleading indications concerning the geographical origin, nature, or quality of goods appearing on packaging, advertising materials, or commercial documents, as well as any other practice likely to mislead consumers regarding the true origin of the product. Such infringements are punishable by one to five years imprisonment and a fine of two million to twenty million Riels (approximately USD 500 to USD 5000).
Beyond domestic protection, Cambodia also benefits from the international framework established by the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement. The Geneva Act significantly expands the scope of international protection by allowing Cambodian GIs to be registered through a single application filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). For Cambodian producers, this system offers substantial practical advantages. This eliminates the need for separate national filings or translated documentation in each jurisdiction[3]. Moreover, international protection remains effective for as long as the GI continues to be protected in Cambodia, without the need for periodic renewal[4], thereby reducing administrative burdens and facilitating the long-term international promotion of Cambodian products.
While this legal framework establishes a solid foundation for the protection of GIs in Cambodia, the existence of legislation alone does not guarantee its effective implementation. Assessing how this framework has evolved in practice, particularly in comparison with other Asian jurisdictions, provides valuable insight into Cambodia’s progress and the challenges that remain.
Cambodia’s GI system in comparative perspective within ASEAN: a gradual but steady development
The international protection of GIs has developed progressively through several multilateral agreements. While the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property first addressed indications of source, it was the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights that introduced the internationally accepted definition of GIs and established minimum standards of protection for all World Trade Organization (WTO) members. Earlier agreements, including the Madrid Agreement (1891) and the Lisbon Agreement (1958), also contributed to strengthening international protection[5]. These international instruments have significantly shaped GI protection in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Following accession to the WTO, most ASEAN member states reformed their national legislation to comply with the TRIPS Agreement[6]. Today, seven of the ten ASEAN countries, including Cambodia, protect GIs through a sui generis system, while the remaining states rely primarily on trademark law[7].
Since the enactment of the Cambodian Law on Geographical Indications in 2014, the number of protected products has gradually increased. From the initial registration of Kampot pepper and Kampong Speu palm sugar in 2010 under an earlier ministerial framework, Cambodia had registered twelve GIs by 2026[8]. This demonstrates a growing recognition of the economic and cultural value of origin-based products and reflects the Government’s continuing efforts to strengthen the national GI system.
Nevertheless, the pace of this development remains relatively modest when compared with neighboring ASEAN countries. Vietnam had recognized 115 domestic GIs by 2023[9], while Thailand had registered 171 GIs by 2026[10]. Although Cambodia has performed better than the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, which has registered only six national GIs since adopting its GI legislation in 2016[11], the comparison nevertheless highlights a significant gap between Cambodia and the region’s leading GI jurisdictions.
Despite this disparity, Cambodia has continued to promote its local products through various governmental initiatives. One notable example is the establishment of the online marketplace CAMBODIATRADE, which aims to enhance the visibility and commercialization of Cambodian products, including those protected by GIs. These efforts demonstrate the Government’s commitment to strengthening the national GI system. Nevertheless, they also raise an important question: why has the expansion of Cambodia’s GI system remained comparatively slow despite the existence of a comprehensive legal framework and sustained governmental support? The following sections therefore examine the principal legal, institutional, and practical factors that continue to constrain the development of GIs in Cambodia.
Constraints in the development of GIs in Cambodia as a key factor in its gradual progress
Although Cambodia has established a standalone legal framework governing GIs, the effectiveness of its enforcement remains limited. While the Law on GIs provides for the protection of registered GIs and prescribes penalties for infringement, the Law does not provide practical mechanisms for monitoring and detecting violations. As the commercial value of GI products increases, so too does the risk of fraud and counterfeiting in both domestic and international markets.[12]. At present, the principal monitoring mechanism consists largely of self-control by individual producers, which is inadequate given the scale of the market. This challenge was acknowledged by Mr. Prak Sereyvath, Director of the Cambodia Institute for Research and Rural Development, who observed:
“It’s very difficult to monitor and control the production and sale of GI products throughout the country. We don’t have the resources and capacity to implement the enforcement. We have already seen some people attempt to sell pepper under the GI name that do not come from the production zone or comply with the specifications.[13]”
This statement illustrates the gap between the legal recognition of GIs and their practical enforcement. In the absence of an effective system, consumers may struggle to distinguish genuine products from counterfeit goods, undermining confidence in Cambodian GIs. Establishing regular inspections, strengthening certification mechanisms, and improving cooperation between producer associations and public authorities would significantly enhance consumer trust and facilitate timely legal action against infringements.
Beyond enforcement, the effectiveness of the sui generis system adopted by Cambodia also deserves critical examination. A sui generis system refers to a standalone legal regime created specifically for GIs, rather than protecting them indirectly through existing trademark or unfair competition law, as the name suggests, meaning “of its own kind[14].”
Whether this model is the most appropriate for developing countries has been the subject of academic debate. David J. Watson, in Intellectual Property Futures: Exploring the Global Landscape of IP Law and Policy [15], argues, based on African case studies, that developing countries may obtain greater benefits by relying on trademark protection in key export markets or by using domestic trademark registrations as a basis for obtaining protection under the EU’s GI system. According to Watson, implementing a sui generis regime requires considerable financial and institutional investment, including the establishment of dedicated administrative bodies, producer organizations, inspection authorities, and certification systems. These institutional costs may represent a significant burden for developing countries with limited administrative capacity. Furthermore, because many developing countries have adopted legal frameworks inspired by the EU, European producers can also obtain protection for their own GIs through these national systems, potentially increasing competition in domestic markets[16].
Nevertheless, these criticisms should not be regarded as conclusive. For some countries, a sui generis system also offers important long-term advantages. As Cambodia already benefits from its accession to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement, it is not necessary to obtain trademark protection in every export market. Although such protection does not automatically extend to every export destination, it nevertheless provides a valuable legal foundation for expanding the international protection of Cambodian products in many export markets.
Consequently, the question is not whether the sui generis model is inherently superior or inferior to trademark-based protection. Rather, each country must determine the system that best reflects its economic circumstances, institutional capacity, and commercial objectives. Having already established a comprehensive sui generis framework, Cambodia’s priority should therefore be to improve the effectiveness of its implementation and enforcement rather than fundamentally reconsidering the legal model it has chosen.
In addition to legal and institutional challenges, Cambodia also faces important production constraints. Registration as a GI is not, by itself, “magic recipe to success[17].” Most Cambodian GI products continue to be produced on a relatively small scale by local farming communities, limiting their ability to satisfy growing international demand[18]. Mondulkiri Wild Honey, one of Cambodia’s registered GIs, illustrates this challenge. Its production depends on wild bee colonies in the forests of Mondulkiri, and some harvesting practices remain destructive, damaging bee habitats and contributing to the decline of bee populations[19]. While the exclusivity associated with GIs often justifies premium prices, limited production capacity may restrict export opportunities and reduce the economic benefits that producers can derive from GI protection.
Moreover, Cambodian GIs remain relatively unknown in global markets when compared with internationally recognized GIs such as Champagne, Parmigiano Reggiano, or Swiss watches. Greater investment in international marketing, promotional campaigns, quality assurance, and export development will therefore be necessary to enhance the global visibility and commercial value of Cambodian GIs.
Despite these challenges, GIs remain an important instrument for Cambodia’s development. When effectively implemented, they contribute not only to the protection of intellectual property rights but also to rural development.
GIs’ contribution to Cambodia’s economy if effectively implemented
If supported by an effective legal framework and robust enforcement mechanisms, GIs have the potential to become an important driver of Cambodia’s long-term economic development, particularly by promoting the country’s rich agricultural heritage and traditional products. Beyond serving as a form of intellectual property protection, GIs function as a tool for rural development, value creation, and market differentiation.
First, GI recognition guarantees that products comply with defined quality standards and production specifications. Under the Cambodian GI registration system, producers must adhere to a product specification establishing the geographical area, production methods, and characteristics that distinguish the product from others. Such quality control enhances consumer confidence and preserves the reputation of Cambodian products in both domestic and international markets.
Secondly, GI protection enables producers to obtain premium prices by differentiating their products from generic alternatives. Kampot pepper provides a notable illustration of this economic benefit. The average price of black Kampot pepper increased from approximately US$4.50 per kilogram in 2009 to around US$14 per kilogram in 2015[20]. By 2026, Kampot black pepper is sold at approximately US$20 per kilogram or more[21] , depending on its quality and the marketing channel. The international reputation of Kampot pepper has also resulted in its widespread use by restaurants and chefs around the world. The increased market value has significantly improved the income of local farmers and strengthened the economic sustainability of pepper-producing communities.
Furthermore, the reputation associated with GIs has generated opportunities beyond agricultural production, particularly in rural tourism. Several Kampot pepper farms have opened their plantations to agritourism, for example, Plantation Kampot Pepper Farm, which combines production with educational visits and hospitality services. Such initiatives generate additional sources of income while simultaneously promoting Cambodian cultural and agricultural heritage.
Effective GI protection also encourages domestic and foreign investment. The legal recognition and enhanced reputation of GI products increase investors’ confidence in developing processing facilities, packaging, marketing, and export activities. Moreover, GIs facilitate access to new domestic and international markets, allowing producers to diversify their commercial opportunities[22].
Finally, the development of GIs contributes to sustainable rural development through employment creation and the preservation of traditional knowledge. The production, processing, certification, marketing, and tourism activities associated with GI products create both direct and indirect employment opportunities[23] , particularly in rural communities where economic opportunities remain limited.
Conclusion
Thanks to the adoption of a specific legal framework on GI, Cambodia has laid the foundation for the development of its rural areas. Over the past decade, the country has witnessed the gradual recognition of its local products, although this progress remains less significant when compared with neighboring countries in the region. Closing this gap does not require a new legal model, only better implementation: resourcing producer associations and relevant authorities to conduct regular inspections rather than relying on self-monitoring, helping smaller producers pool resources for export, and extending Kampot pepper’s promotional success to other registered products.
This article has provided a general overview of Cambodia’s GI system and its contribution to economic development while highlighting the principal challenges that continue to hinder its effectiveness. It is hoped that this discussion will encourage further research and a more comprehensive legal analysis of the challenges and opportunities surrounding the development of GIs in Cambodia and other developing countries.
Bibliography
Legislation
Cambodian Law on Geographical Indications 2014
Book
David J. Watson, Intellectual Property Futures: Exploring the Global Landscape of IP Law and Policy (2025)
UNCTAD, Why Geographical Indications for Least Developed Countries (2016)
Report
Le Thi Thu Ha, Delphine Marie-Vivien, Facilitating the protection of geographical indications in ASEAN (Final report, 2017)
Online sources
Báo Nghệ An, ‘Pepper prices today’ (4 May 2026) https://www.vietnam.vn/en/gia-tieu-hom-nay-4-5-2026-trong-nuoc-di-ngang-cao-nhat-144-000-dong-kg
Cornell Law School, ‘Legal Information Institute’ https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sui_generis
Pheakdey Heng, Dr. Vannarith Chheang, ‘The Roles of Geographical Indication in Trade Promotion and Local Development: A Case Study of Cambodia’s Kampot Pepper’ https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/The%20Roles%20of%20Geographical%20%20%20Indication%20in%20Trade%20Promotion.pdf
Guerin E, Chheang C, Sinpoo C, Attasopa K, Noirungsee N, Zheng H, Ling TC, Phokasem P, Disayathanoowat T., ‘Current Status, Challenges, and Perspectives in the Conservation of Native Honeybees and Beekeeping in Cambodia’ (2025) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11766281/
Lao Reasey, ‘Geographical Indications and Socio Economic for local Development’ (May 2015)
Lao Reasey, ‘Webinar Series on Geographical Indications on the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement: Perspective of Cambodia’ (2021) https://ipkey.eu/sites/default/files/2021-06/IPKey-SEA_jun2021_Lao-Reasey_The-Geneva-Act-of-the-Lisbon-Agreement-Perspective-of-Cambodia.pdf
Nhi Anh, ‘Products with protected geographical indications still few in number’ (VnEconomy, 15 March 2023) https://en.vneconomy.vn/products-with-protected-geographical-indications-still-few-in-number.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Phnom Penh Post, ‘GI benefits yet to be fully realised’ (15 July 2013) https://phnompenhpost.com/business/gi-benefits-yet-be-fully-realised/
WIPO, ‘Thailand Leads the Way to GI Registration in ASEAN Countries’ (10 February 2026) https://www.wipo.int/en/web/ip-advantage/w/stories/thailand-leads-the-way-to-gi-registration-in-asean-countries
WIPO, ‘Lisbon Agreement’s Geneva Act Receives First Geographical Indication: Kampot Pepper from Cambodia’ (18 January 2021) https://www.wipo.int/en/web/lisbon-system/w/news/2021/news_0001
Official website
The Department of Intellectual Property, ‘List of registered GIs’ https://digitalip.cambodiaip.gov.kh/en/geographical-indication
[1] David J. Watson, Intellectual Property Futures: Exploring the Global Landscape of IP Law and Policy (2025) 435
[2] UNCTAD, Why Geographical Indications for Least Developed Countries (2016) 21-26
[3] Lao Reasey, Webinar Series on Geographical Indications on the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement: Perspective of Cambodia (2021) 13 https://ipkey.eu/sites/default/files/2021-06/IPKey-SEA_jun2021_Lao-Reasey_The-Geneva-Act-of-the-Lisbon-Agreement-Perspective-of-Cambodia.pdf
[4] ibid 14
[5] Le Thi Thu Ha, Delphine Marie-Vivien, Facilitating the protection of geographical indications in ASEAN (Final report, 2017) 11-13
[6] ibid 16
[7] ibid
[8] The Department of Intellectual Property, ‘List of registered GIs’ https://digitalip.cambodiaip.gov.kh/en/geographical-indication
[9] Nhi Anh, ‘Products with protected geographical indications still few in number’ (VnEconomy, 15 March 2023) https://en.vneconomy.vn/products-with-protected-geographical-indications-still-few-in-number.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[10] WIPO, ‘Thailand Leads the Way to GI Registration in ASEAN Countries’ (10 February 2026) https://www.wipo.int/en/web/ip-advantage/w/stories/thailand-leads-the-way-to-gi-registration-in-asean-countries
[11] ibid
[12] WIPO, ‘Lisbon Agreement’s Geneva Act Receives First Geographical Indication: Kampot Pepper from Cambodia’ (18 January 2021) https://www.wipo.int/en/web/lisbon-system/w/news/2021/news_0001
[13] Dr. Pheakdey Heng, Dr. Vannarith Chheang, ‘The Roles of Geographical Indication in Trade Promotion and Local Development: A Case Study of Cambodia’s Kampot Pepper’ https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/The%20Roles%20of%20Geographical%20%20%20Indication%20in%20Trade%20Promotion.pdf
[14] Cornell Law School, ‘Legal Information Institute’ https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sui_generis
[15] David J. Watson, Intellectual Property Futures: Exploring the Global Landscape of IP Law and Policy (2025) ch 16
[16] ibid 457
[17] ibid 443
[18] Phnom Penh Post, ‘GI benefits yet to be fully realised’ (15 July 2013) https://phnompenhpost.com/business/gi-benefits-yet-be-fully-realised/
[19] Guerin E, Chheang C, Sinpoo C, Attasopa K, Noirungsee N, Zheng H, Ling TC, Phokasem P, Disayathanoowat T., ‘Current Status, Challenges, and Perspectives in the Conservation of Native Honeybees and Beekeeping in Cambodia’ (2025) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11766281/
[20] Lao Reasey, Geographical Indications and Socio Economic for local Development (May 2015) 13
[21] Báo Nghệ An, ‘Pepper prices today’ (4 May 2026) https://www.vietnam.vn/en/gia-tieu-hom-nay-4-5-2026-trong-nuoc-di-ngang-cao-nhat-144-000-dong-kg
[22] Lao Reasey, Geographical Indications and Socio Economic for local Development (May 2015) 13
[23] ibid 8
