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

March 4, 2021

A Closer Look at Series Marks Under Myanmar’s New Trademark Law

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Myanmar, which is now more than halfway through the scheduled soft opening of its Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the country’s New Trademark Law, is well on its way to the full realization of its plans for a modernized IP system operating on par with international standards. As the first of four IP-related laws passed in 2019, the ongoing implementation of the Trademark Law affects definitions of trademarks and types of trademark applications.

Section 2 of the law defines a “mark” as “either a visible sign or a combination of signs, including one’s own names, alphabet letters, numbers, graphical representations, or compositions of color and tints to distinguish the goods or services of an enterprise from those of another enterprise. Within this scope, trademark, service mark, collective mark and certification mark are also included.

The ‘series mark’ consists of a number of these marks, which resemble each other on the material particulars, but may differ in some aspect—for instance, a mark with different color variations. However, there is no specific definition of what makes up a series mark in the Trademark Law itself, and there has also not yet been any clear guidance on the issue.

The Trademark Rules, which set the guidelines for the trademark application and registration procedures, are still in the process of being finalized, are expected to include information on the possibility of filing series marks under the soft opening period. On December 29 2020, the IPD held a workshop to clarify various issues, and informed attendees that applications containing more than one trademark in a single application are prohibited under the new system. However, this seemed to contradict the Ministry of Commerce’s Order No. 63/2020, which had declared that the refiling of old marks under the soft opening period of the new Trademark Law had to be identical to the corresponding marks that were filed at the Office of the Registration of Deeds (ORD) under the old system. Some of these filings include series marks, or applications that contain multiple trademarks.

When this potential discrepancy was pointed out, the IPD responded by suggesting that this announcement did not prohibit to file the trademark under the new system during the soft opening, but the applicants can still reserve the right under this period by filing the relevant marks as single trademarks. That is, marks that were filed and registered at the ORD as series marks can be refiled as separate applications—one for each mark. Alternatively, holders of a previously filed series mark could choose to file only one mark out of the series during the soft-opening period, and then file the rest at a later date. Furthermore, the IPD emphasized that regardless of the actions taken, all applications filed during the soft-opening period will be accorded the same filing date, which will be that of the grand opening.

This uncertainty over series marks and the subsequent clarification is an example of the many issues that the IPD has worked to iron out during the soft-opening period. It should also be seen as a normal process in the monumental task of a country overhauling its IP system, and a sign that the authorities are following through on their aims by working to settle questions and smooth the way for a fully operational system of filing and registering trademarks.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 17, 2026
Thailand’s new labeling requirements for medical devices, which include for the first time a unique device identification (UDI) requirement for software as a medical device (SaMD), take effect on June 20, 2026. The Notification of the Ministry of Public Health regarding Criteria, Methods, and Conditions on Labeling and Instructions for Use for Medical Devices 2025, which replaces a similar notification from 2020, was published in the Government Gazette on December 22, 2025. To ensure clarity, modernity, and patient safety, the regulation requires domestic manufacturers and importers to provide labels and instructions for use (IFU) that are clearly legible, complete, and free of false or misleading claims. It also permits IFU to be provided in electronic format, such as via QR codes, websites, or other digital channels—directly relevant to SaMD, where physical labels are impractical and electronic presentation is the natural medium. The notification distinguishes two categories for labeling language. Home-use medical devices (for lay users outside healthcare facilities) must have labels and IFU in Thai. Professional-use medical devices may display labels and documentation in either Thai or English. This distinction is significant for SaMD developers: software intended for clinical professionals may use English-language interfaces and IFU, while consumer-facing health applications must provide Thai-language content. Labeling and UDI Requirements Labels and IFU must include, at a minimum: Product name and intended purpose Quantity or volume Name and address of domestic manufacturer or importer Thai FDA approval number Lot, version, or serial number Manufacturing date and expiry date For SaMD, the version number requirement is particularly relevant. The regulation also mandates display of a UDI code for SaMD in risk category 2 (moderate-risk), category 3 (moderate- to high-risk), and category 4 (high-risk), according to Thailand’s medical device risk classification system (which complies with the ASEAN Medical Device Directive and the EU
Read More
May 11, 2026
Thailand’s rise as a regional hub for luxury retail has influenced how market entry is structured and assessed across Southeast Asia. As brands consider establishing a presence in the market, regulatory and operational considerations form a key part of the overall entry assessment. Foreign Ownership Restrictions for Retailers Foreign investment in retail activities is subject to a relatively extensive regulatory framework, particularly in relation to foreign ownership and the approvals required under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Under the FBA, a company is generally regarded as foreign if 50% or more of its shares are held by non-Thai nationals, in which case the business is required to obtain a foreign business license (FBL) issued by the director-general of the Department of Business Development, with the approval of the Foreign Business Committee. The committee will not grant an FBL unless it is convinced the proposed business demonstrates unique characteristics such as a distinctive business model, innovative processes, specialized services or products, or a clear competitive differentiation that will benefit Thailand; constitutes a highly specialized business or requires specialized technology or expertise; and will not compete with Thai business operators who engage in the same business. The committee makes its decisions on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances, which can make the licensing process less predictable in practice. However, there are also alternative pathways for consideration, including exemptions in specific circumstances. For example, foreign-owned businesses in Thailand with at least THB 100 million in registered capital are allowed to open five retail stores in the country. Some businesses may also be able to access preferential treatment under international agreements and treaties between Thailand and certain foreign states, subject to eligibility requirements. Structural and Business Model Challenges The determination of what constitutes a “retail store” may itself present
Read More
May 8, 2026
Thailand has liberalized its wine import regime, allowing, for the first time, multiple importers to bring in and distribute the same wine brands. On March 27, 2026, the Ministry of Finance issued the Ministerial Regulation on the Importation of Alcoholic Beverages (No. 3) 2026, which waives the requirement to appoint a sole authorized agent for alcoholic beverages to be specified in notifications from the Excise Department. The Excise Department has already issued its first such notification, expressly exempting wine and sparkling wine made from grapes from the sole agent requirement. For all other types of alcoholic beverages (e.g., beer, tequila, spirits) the sole agent requirement remains in force, and applicants for importer licenses must provide evidence of exclusive distributorship issued by the manufacturer or brand owner. The exemption may be extended to other alcoholic beverage categories through future Excise Department notifications. Implications for Competition and Tourism The reform allows multiple importers to bring in and distribute the same wine brand without routing through the brand owner’s designated exclusive importer, reducing monopolization and boosting competition. Excise Department Director-General Pornchai Thirawet noted that wine was chosen as the starting point because implementation is straightforward in this case and because domestic wine prices remain high—with increased competition expected to exert downward pressure on prices. More broadly, the reform is intended to lower market entry barriers, expand supply, and make wine more accessible to Thai consumers, while supporting Thailand’s position as a regional tourism hub. Product Quality Control and Loss of Sole Agent Accountability Under the previous framework, the designated importer bore full responsibility for the proper storage, handling, and distribution of wine and sparkling wine from importation to final sale. This arrangement helped ensure that products were maintained under appropriate conditions, including temperature control, light exposure, and humidity management, to preserve quality
Read More
April 22, 2026
A new decree in Vietnam brings significant implementation clarity to the country’s existing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal framework. An EPR mechanism was first codified in Vietnam in the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection amid ongoing challenges surrounding the collection and treatment of product and packaging waste. The mechanism was progressively detailed through Decree No. 08/2022/ND‑CP and its successive amendments, but the regulatory framework remained insufficiently developed, notably in terms of support mechanisms for waste collection, recycling, and treatment. The newly launched regulations in Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (Decree 110), issued on April 1, 2026, and taking effect on May 25, 2026, stipulate fully and clearly the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to recycle products and packaging and to treat waste. Some key provisions of Decree 110 for manufacturers, importers, and related stakeholders are presented below. Subjects of EPR The Law on Environmental Protection assigns responsibility to manufacturers and importers for product and packaging recycling (under Article 54) or waste collection and treatment (under Article 55), depending on the type of products and packaging they produce or import. Decree 110 elaborates on these EPR provisions by specifying the responsible entities and listing out the types of products and packaging subject to recycling and waste treatment responsibilities. Decree 110 clarifies the responsible entities in special cases, such as when products under the same brand are made by multiple manufacturers, when there is a contract manufacturing or entrusted import relationship, and when the manufacturer or importer is part of a corporate group. Notably, exemptions may be applied in some scenarios, such as for manufacturers and importers of products and packaging exclusively for export, temporary import and re-export, or research and testing purposes, as well as for entities with annual revenue from related products not exceeding VND 30 billion. Recycling Responsibilities Decree 110
Read More