While the timeline for the ongoing “soft opening” of Myanmar’s new Intellectual Property Department (IPD) lacks clarity, the IPD has maintained continuity in its operations. The soft-opening period, which began on October 1, 2020, was first announced by the Ministry of Commerce in Order No. 63/2020, dated August 28, 2020. The order did not mention the closing date of the soft-opening period, but many were counting on the soft-opening period finishing after six months. This assumption stemmed from the IPD’s workshops in 2020 about the upcoming implementation of the new Trademark Law, when officers indicated that the soft-opening period was expected to continue for at least six months, depending on the volume of applications received. Therefore, it was thought that the soft-opening period would conclude at the end of March 2021. However, this date has come and gone, and trademark owners are increasingly expressing their concerns about when—and whether—the soft opening period will end. No announcement appears forthcoming, either. The political volatility that has gripped Myanmar since the military seized power on February 1, 2021, has affected virtually all operations in the country, including government operations. As a result, no official announcements on the end date for the soft-opening period have been issued. However, the IPD has continued accepting applications for trademarks to be refiled, and has been issuing extensions to applicants who require additional assessment of their trademark portfolio and dossiers. Aims and Procedures of the Soft-Opening Period The soft-opening period is a key early stage in the public implementation of Myanmar’s Trademark Law 2019. It allows owners of marks that were registered with the Office of the Registration of Deeds (ORD) under the previous (and antiquated) system and/or actually used in Myanmar to refile their marks with the newly formed IPD under a fully modernized IP regime.

When a U.S. cosmetics startup discovered that a trademark application for its brand name had been filed in Vietnam by a likely trademark squatter, they opted to use a “straw man” – another company with no visible connection to the startup – to directly negotiate with the squatter.

Under current law, the term of protection for photographic works is 50 years from the work’s creation or first publication. The draft amendment of the Copyright Act extends this to be the lifetime of the author plus an additional 50 years. This change would put Thailand’s protection for photographic works in line with the WIPO Copyright Treaty, of which Thailand is getting ready to be a member. Online infringement: safe harbours and takedowns While the current Copyright Act provides injunctive relief against online infringement for copyright owners, together with an exemption from infringement liability for ISPs, the mechanism for doing so has proved ineffective. The new draft therefore replaces this mechanism with safe harbour provisions that exempt ISPs from liability for copyright infringement committed by users, as long as the ISPs comply properly – including by implementing the notice-and-takedown system. The draft provides a detailed definition of ‘service providers’ and divides ISPs into intermediary ISPs, caching ISPs, hosting ISPs, and search engine ISPs. The draft’s definition of ‘users’ of ISPs includes anyone who uses an ISP’s service (paying or otherwise). In order to be exempted from liability for copyright infringement for their provided services, an ISP must have explicitly announced (and complied with) a policy to terminate services to repeated infringers. ISPs must also adopt the notice-and-takedown system – a new addition by the draft. Under this system, which can be compared to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US, copyright owners can send a notice of infringement (backed by evidence) to caching, hosting or search engine ISPs, informing them of any allegedly infringing data. An ISP that has been notified is required to immediately take down the allegedly infringing data, its references, and access points from their system – or block access. The ISP must then notify the user

Moral rights are non-transferable under Vietnam’s laws on copyright, but the issue of whether they can be waived is unsettled. The amended Intellectual Property Law, now in draft form, may bring clarity to this issue.