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

July 1, 2015

Protection for Well-Known Trademarks in Myanmar

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

Myanmar still has no Trademark Act—a law was expected to come into effect in 2013, but was then postponed with as yet no firm date as to when it will be enacted. Despite this, many rights holders have already taken steps to protect their trademarks under Myanmar’s existing system by recording their marks with the Office of the Registry of Deeds and Assurances (RDA) under the Registration Act.

In fact, over half of the companies on Interbrand’s Top 20 Best Global Brands 2014—including Google, Apple, Coca-Cola, Samsung, Toyota, Intel, Hewlett Packard, and Honda—have registered their marks under the current system. This article discusses the current practice of securing trademark protection in Myanmar, as well as the changes proposed by the new Trademark Act.

Current System

Myanmar’s current interim system of protection allows a rights holder to protect a trademark by filing an application to record a declaration of ownership. Once this is recorded, the corresponding mark will be protected for three years from the registration date. Following the recordation of the declaration of ownership, a cautionary notice should be published in a local newspaper or periodical, to notify the public of the mark’s ownership and to warn against passing off or infringement.

Protection for Well-Known Marks

A rights holder must invest a significant amount of time and money creating an image, promoting and advertising it, building trust, and then demonstrating the quality of its products before the public is likely to recognize the mark as well known. However, under the current system, identical or similar trademarks can be registered concurrently by more than one party, as there is no trademark law and thus no official trademark search facility or database, no examination process for similar trademarks, and no opposition or cancellation processes against trademark applications prior to their registration.

Rights holders—particularly holders of well-known marks—must preserve and protect their trademark rights using Myanmar’s current practice and laws. If they do not, they risk their marks being taken over and distributed by an infringer or another party without their authorization, or a confusingly similar mark being applied to poor-quality goods or services, resulting in reputational damage.

As mentioned above, rights holders—particularly owners of well-known marks—can obtain protection for their trademarks by recording a declaration of ownership and publishing a cautionary notice in a local newspaper or periodical. Further, if the mark is subsequently infringed, the rights holder can launch a civil action for trademark infringement under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, to obtain a permanent injunction. In addition, it may claim damages caused by such infringement. In civil prosecutions, demonstrating actual commercial use of a mark in Myanmar is crucial, in order to prove which party has the better rights over a mark—Myanmar courts place significant weight on use when determining ownership of a mark. The relevant date in such cases is the registration date of the declaration of ownership and the date on which the mark was first used in Myanmar.

Global Brands Come Knocking

Apple is the top-ranked brand in the Best Global Brands 2014 rankings and it already has an official authorized dealer and reseller of Apple laptops, desktop computers, and iPhones in Myanmar, which is responsible for expanding the tech giant’s business and addressing customer requirements. Coca-Cola has also generated a lasting positive impact in Myanmar by manufacturing, distributing, selling, and hiring through its local business there. Samsung has launched an electronic equipment business, mobile phone reseller and shop in the country; while other leading global brands—such as Mercedes Benz, BMW, and Toyota—have all opened showrooms with local partners in Myanmar.

Under the current system, it is possible for one or more parties to register identical or similar trademarks in trademark in Myanmar concurrently, as previously mentioned. This is the case even for well-known marks. Therefore, identical trademarks should be recorded and a cautionary notice published to show that they are protected in Myanmar.

Published Cautionary Notices Showing Registered Marks

Recently, a number of local shops have been using names and well-known marks as their shop or business names. This may be because the well-known (often foreign) mark is unknown to them. Additionally, under the current system, they may be within their rights to use the well-known marks, provided that they have recorded a declaration of ownership with the RDA. In such cases rights holders can do nothing to prevent such infringement, unless they have already taken steps to protect their marks in line with the current practice.

A legitimate rights holder seeking legal recourse against an alleged infringer which has acted in bad faith may:

  • Send a cease and desist letter ordering that the infringement stop;
  • Request a cancellation action against the infringed registered trademark; or
  • Request a temporary injunction from the courts and initiate a lawsuit.

The rights holder must demonstrate actual use of the mark to prove that it is the legitimate owner and has a stronger right to the mark in Myanmar. Such use might include the sale and distribution of products or services bearing the mark, either on its own or via a distributor. However, this may prove difficult, since the legitimate rights holder may be unable to provide evidence claiming a stronger right than the alleged infringer for products that are unrelated to its business.

Further, foreigners and foreign companies are not allowed to operate trading and retailing businesses in Myanmar. For this reason, rights holders face limitations on their capacity to sell and distribute products, because they are required to find a local distributor or business partner to trade, sell, or import their products in Myanmar.

Draft Trademark Act

As mentioned earlier, the new Trademark Act was expected to come into effect in 2014. It is now hoped that the new Trademark Act will come into effect later this year, so that the mechanisms of trademark protection and solutions to a number of problems that have arisen out of the current practice will be provided for. Such issues include:

  • How to authenticate a trademark right under the new Trademark Act, which has arisen from the current practice of recording declarations of trademark registration;
  • How examinations will be conducted to identify the rights between two or more trademark owners that have recorded the same trademark with the RDA;
  • Remedies for foreign rights holders trying to retrieve their IP rights from a domestic user which obtained a senior right under the current practice; and
  • Supporting evidence for legitimate rights holders in proving their stronger right over a disputed mark. This applies not only to actual use of a disputed Myanmar, but also to use of the mark in other countries, which should be considered in both stronger right and unfair competition disputes.

Since Myanmar opened its doors to the international community in 2011, many companies have looked to expand their business into the country. With new and exciting ventures being set up in Myanmar, there is tremendous potential and a need for a robust IP regime. As many leading global companies continue to invest and expand their businesses in Myanmar, the draft Trademark Act is expected to be the first IP law to be implemented in the country. While it has been debated extensively and has undergone several significant amendments, after 10 years it still has not been passed.

It is hoped that the new Trademark Act will be implemented this year to protect long-term business investments in Myanmar. It is vital that IP protection be considered not only at the start of a business, but over its entire lifecycle. Currently, rights holders face problems when it comes to enforcing their IP rights—for example, in cases of distributorship. It is not uncommon for disputes to arise between rights holders and local distributors after the foreign rights holder has successfully built its brand in Myanmar. The local distributor then creates its own brand, imitating the main features of the original, and registers the new imitating brand, which would certainly affect a legitimate rights holder’s business in Myanmar. These are serious considerations for prospective businesses looking to enter the Myanmar market, but wanting to protect their valuable intellectual property.

Further Progress

While waiting for the new Trademark Act to come into effect, it is expected that a Myanmar Department of Intellectual Property will be established—probably in Nay Pyi Taw—as well as offices where IP applications can be submitted, most likely in Yangon, Mandalay, and in other large cities. Regulations, announcements, and publications are likely to be drafted in accordance with the Trademark Act in order to implement a trademark examination system, procedures, and formal documenting requirements. In addition, careful attention will need to be paid to the issue of transitioning marks that have already been registered with the RDA to the new registration system under the Trademark Act.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More