When General Motors filed a trademark application for “Camaro” in Cambodia on September 25, 2025, automotive enthusiasts worldwide started speculating about the muscle car’s comeback. But here’s what most people missed: GM wasn’t filing in Tokyo, Berlin, or São Paulo. They filed in Cambodia, a country not exactly known as a major automotive market.
The filing caught my attention immediately. In my years of trademark practice, I’ve learned that where a company files often reveals more about their brand protection strategy than what they’re filing. This wasn’t about launching the Camaro in Phnom Penh. This was about something else entirely.
Why Cambodia? The Filing That Caught Everyone Off Guard
On September 25, 2025, General Motors submitted trademark application number KH/119217/25 to the Cambodia Department of Intellectual Property. The filing covers “motor vehicles and parts thereof,” which immediately tells us something important. This isn’t about protecting merchandise rights for Camaro-branded key chains or t-shirts. GM wants to keep their options open for using the Camaro name on actual vehicles.
But here’s what makes this filing puzzling at first glance. The sixth-generation Camaro rolled off the assembly line for the last time in December 2023. GM hasn’t announced any plans for a seventh-generation model. The company’s existing Camaro trademarks remain active and valid in the United States and Canada. Cambodia isn’t a major automotive market. It’s not where GM manufactures vehicles.
So why file there now? When I first saw this filing cross my desk, my immediate thought wasn’t “the Camaro is coming back.” It was “GM’s trademark counsel knows exactly what they’re doing.” The choice of jurisdiction reveals strategic defensive brand protection in a market that matters for entirely different reasons than car sales.
Dormant vs Dead: How Companies Keep Brand Options Open
Here’s a critical distinction in trademark law that most business owners don’t understand until it costs them. A trademark can be dormant without being dead. When a company stops producing a product, they face a choice. They can abandon the trademark completely, which means anyone can register it and use it. Or they can maintain legal control over the brand name even during the gap between product generations.
The difference matters tremendously. In my practice, I’ve worked with clients who let trademark protection lapse during product transitions. One client spent six figures buying back their own brand name from a trademark squatter who had registered it in three countries during the two years the product wasn’t in production. By the time they wanted to revive the brand, someone else owned it legally in those markets.
GM isn’t making that mistake with Camaro. The September 2025 filing in Cambodia sits alongside other protective moves. In May 2025, GM renewed the trademark for “Panther,” the original internal codename for the first-generation Camaro. These aren’t accidents. They’re part of a deliberate strategy to maintain legal control over valuable brand assets while the physical product sits on the sidelines.
Here’s the key insight: in most countries, a company doesn’t need to actively sell products under a trademark to maintain ownership rights. They just need to file the trademark application before someone else does. This preserves their future options without committing to any specific production plans. Imagine GM decides in 2027 to launch an electric Camaro. Without trademark protection in Cambodia, a local manufacturer could have already registered the name. GM would then face expensive legal battles, forced rebranding in that market, or paying to buy back their own brand name. Filing proactively costs a fraction of fixing problems reactively.
The Cambodia Connection: First-to-File Systems and Counterfeit Manufacturing Hubs
Cambodia’s significance has nothing to do with selling cars there. To understand why this jurisdiction matters, you need to understand how it operates. Cambodia uses a first-to-file trademark system. In these countries, the party who files the trademark application first gets the rights, regardless of who actually created or used the brand first. This creates opportunities for bad actors to register famous brand names before the legitimate owners get around to filing.
I’ve handled cases where clients discovered this reality too late. They found counterfeit versions of their products being manufactured in Southeast Asian countries where they never bothered to file trademark protection. By the time they discovered the problem, local manufacturers had already registered the trademarks themselves. In first-to-file countries, the squatter has legal standing. The original brand owner becomes the infringer. That’s not a theoretical problem. That’s what actually happens.
Cambodia matters specifically because it has developed into a significant manufacturing hub, particularly for garments and consumer goods. While it’s not a major automotive manufacturing center, it’s part of a broader Southeast Asian manufacturing ecosystem where counterfeit goods production remains a serious problem. In 2024, Cambodian authorities destroyed more than 100 tonnes of seized counterfeit goods, including medical products, cosmetics, and consumer goods. The Counter Counterfeit Committee of Cambodia uncovered 60 cases of counterfeit products being sold in the country in a single year. These weren’t small operations. They were organized manufacturing and distribution networks.
Now connect the dots. Trademark squatters don’t necessarily plan to make cars. They register famous brand names and then either demand ransom payments from the legitimate owners or license the names to manufacturers of counterfeit parts and accessories. A squatter with rights to “Camaro” in Cambodia could authorize production of fake Camaro-branded parts, which then get exported throughout Asia. This is exactly the scenario GM’s filing prevents.
Cambodia’s legal framework allows customs authorities to suspend clearance of goods suspected of being counterfeit, but only if the legitimate trademark owner has registered their mark in Cambodia. Without that registration, customs has no basis to act. GM’s filing gives them enforcement tools they wouldn’t otherwise have. It also blocks squatters from registering “Camaro” first and then approaching GM with demands for payment. I’ve studied cases where squatters filed over 160 trademark applications for popular brands, then demanded payments ranging from $15,000 to $75,000 to relinquish the rights. By filing proactively, GM shuts down that entire playbook.
Strategic Lessons for Business Owners: When International Filing Actually Matters
Not every company needs to file trademarks in Cambodia. But every company needs a strategic approach to determining which international markets matter for their specific situation. When clients ask me “Do I really need to file in [country]?” I turn it around: “Can you afford to let someone else control your brand name there?” Because in first-to-file countries, that’s exactly what happens when you wait.
Start by asking where you manufacture or where your manufacturing partners operate. If you work with factories in Vietnam, Thailand, or Cambodia, you need trademark protection there. These aren’t retail markets for most of my clients. They’re manufacturing locations where counterfeit goods get produced and where trademark squatters can cause real damage. Next, consider where competitors might manufacture. Even if you don’t operate in certain countries, filing there prevents competitors from registering your brand names and using them on competing products in markets where you do business.
The math makes this decision straightforward. Direct trademark filing in a single foreign country typically ranges from $1,500 to $3,000, including attorney fees and government charges. That’s the cost of prevention. Now compare that to the cost of problems. Fighting a trademark squatter in court costs $50,000 to $200,000. Buying back your own brand name from a squatter who has legal rights costs whatever they demand, often $25,000 to $100,000 or more. Those numbers make the decision clear.
For companies planning to file in three or more countries, the Madrid Protocol offers an efficient alternative. This international treaty system allows you to file a single application designating multiple member countries covering 121 countries, including most major markets. You pay fees for each country, but you avoid the cost of hiring separate attorneys in each jurisdiction.
Timing drives everything in first-to-file countries. File before your product launch plans become public. File before you announce manufacturing partnerships. File before competitors discover you’re entering new markets. Being second means losing. I work with clients on what I call a tiered protection strategy. Tier one includes countries where you actively sell products. Tier two covers countries where you manufacture or where manufacturing partners operate. Tier three includes markets where trademark squatting or counterfeiting poses significant risks to your brand.
Here’s the critical difference between approaches. The proactive strategy means you identify the markets that matter, file before you need to, and maintain protection as your business grows. The reactive approach means waiting until you discover a problem. At that point, you’re negotiating with squatters or explaining to customers why counterfeit products bearing your trademark are flooding the market. One more advantage: different countries have different use requirements. The United States requires proof of actual use before granting final trademark registration. Most other countries, including Cambodia, don’t. You can file based on intent to use and maintain the registration without ever selling products there.
Learn From GM’s Playbook: Protect Your Brand Now
GM’s Cambodia filing demonstrates smart brand protection thinking that every business owner should understand. They’re not planning to sell Camaros in Phnom Penh. They’re preventing trademark squatters from registering the name, blocking counterfeit manufacturers from using it, and preserving their future options for one of automotive history’s most valuable brand names. The lesson applies to businesses of all sizes. Your brand represents significant value. In first-to-file countries, waiting to protect it means risking loss of control.
I work directly with every client to develop an international trademark strategy that makes sense for their business, their budget, and their growth plans. Whether you’re planning international expansion or simply want to protect your brand from counterfeiters and squatters, I can help you make informed decisions about where and when to file.
The trademark landscape has changed. Global manufacturing, international counterfeiting networks, and first-to-file trademark systems in most countries mean that brand protection requires forward thinking. GM understands this. Their September 25, 2025 filing in Cambodia wasn’t about selling cars. It was about protecting a valuable brand asset from predictable threats.
Contact my office today to discuss your trademark protection strategy. We’ll review your current registrations, identify gaps in your international coverage, and develop a plan to protect your brand before problems emerge. Your brand is your most valuable business asset. Make sure you actually own it everywhere that matters.
