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

December 21, 2023

Brand Protection at the Myanmar Border: Insights and Strategies from the Front Line

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

Can rights holders record trademark and brand-related IP information with customs and, if so, how?

Rights holders can record their registered marks with the Myanmar Customs Department to protect their intellectual property rights from cross-border trade in counterfeit goods bearing their registered marks under the Trademark Law, which came into force on April 1, 2023. Furthermore, regardless of whether they have filed a customs recordation, registered mark owners can request a suspension order to prevent the release of goods into free circulation if they have evidence giving reason to suspect that counterfeit goods are being—or will be—imported into the country, in accordance with Section 68 of the Trademark Law’s.

According to Ministry of Planning and Finance (MOPF) Notification No. 50/2023, once a trademark is registered under the Trademark Law in Myanmar, the registered mark owner is entitled to apply for a customs recordation with the Customs Department directly or via a legal representative at no cost. Unless the mark is registered with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Trademark Law, a customs recordation or suspension order cannot be applied.

A customs recordation is valid for two years from the date of the application’s acceptance. The recordation can be renewed every two years, 30 days before the expiration date. After the customs recordation is made, any information amended or withdrawn for the registered mark at the IPD must also be provided to the Customs Department within three working days, together with any necessary documentation reflecting the amendments or withdrawal.

Customs recordation is not available for industrial designs. The Industrial Design Law and Industrial Design Rules do not provide the requirements and process for a customs recordation or suspension order in relation to industrial designs. Section 68 of the Industrial Design Law indicates that, upon a rights holder’s request, the Court of Intellectual Property Rights can order provisional measures as it sees fit to prevent the infringement of the rights to the registered industrial design and to prevent the entry of the infringing goods into the domestic market. This includes imported goods after the payment of leviable duties to the Customs Department and customs clearance. In addition, the Industrial Design Law allows the Court of Intellectual Property Rights to issue a final decision on destroying the infringing goods or preventing such goods from entering the Myanmar market.

Are copyright registrations also registrable with Customs?

Under Myanmar’s new Copyright Law (enacted in 2019 and brought into effect on October 31, 2023 under State Administration Council Notification No. 218/2023), rights holders can apply at the Customs Department for a suspension order of the release of goods suspected of infringing copyright or related rights into free circulation if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the goods infringe copyright or related rights. The Copyright Rules under the Ministry of Commerce’s Notification No. 70/2023 setting up the procedures for copyright-related matters silents about the customs recordation or suspension order process. Subsequent rules and regulations laying out the requirements and procedures for an application of customs recordation and suspension order are being prepared.

While Myanmar has yet to ratify the Berne Convention, works by non-citizens or non-residents are protected under Myanmar’s Copyright Law 2019 if they are created and either first published in Myanmar or published in Myanmar within 30 days of the first publication in another country. The protection of copyrights automatically arises without a need for registration with the IPD.

Can brand owners send customs officials a product information guide or any additional materials to assist them in identifying genuine products?

MOPF Notification No. 50/2023 indicates that rights holders can provide the Customs Department with product information. This can include the:

  • product name;
  • details about the mark’s registration (e.g., registration date, number, and term);
  • supporting materials or tools; and
  • a detailed description for how to recognize the goods.

Documents can be attached to assist the Customs Department in identifying the genuine products; however, the notification does not indicate the specific type of documents for identification. No precedent is yet available to clarify the specific documents or other materials to send to the Customs Department for product identification as all marks filed under the Trademark Law are still pending registration, which means they cannot yet be the subject of an application for a customs recordation or suspension order.

What is the typical process for confiscation or further investigation in the event that customs officials identify potentially counterfeit goods?

If the Customs Department discovers potentially counterfeit goods or goods bearing a counterfeit mark, it will notify the relevant rights holder and importer that they may examine the suspected goods at the same time under the Customs Department’s supervision. The rights holder can apply to the Court of Intellectual Property Rights to take provisional measures for its damages. The importer is allowed to apply to the Court of Intellectual Property Rights if unsatisfied with the suspension order. The Customs Department is empowered to administer the suspected goods in accordance with the decision of the Director General of the Customs Department or the order of the Court of Intellectual Property Rights.

Upon a decision of the Court of Intellectual Property Rights confirming that the goods are counterfeit or bear a counterfeit mark, the Customs Department must take action accordingly, with the importer responsible for paying the costs of storing, destroying, and removing the goods. If the Court of Intellectual Property Rights decides that the goods are not counterfeit or do not bear a counterfeit mark, the rights holder must pay court-ordered compensation to the importer for the wrongful suspension and detention of the goods. The Customs Department can exchange information about allegedly infringing goods with other countries through the World Customs Organization.

How will brand owners typically be contacted when suspicious or counterfeit goods are identified?

Under the Trademark Law, regardless of whether an application for a suspension order has been filed with the Customs Department, the Customs Department must suspend the release of goods into free circulation whenever they find goods bearing a counterfeit mark. Without leaking confidential information, the Customs Department will notify the relevant rights holder and importer about the suspension order.

The rights holder must take legal action or inform the Customs Department about the actions of the Court of Intellectual Property Rights on provisional measures during the period specified under the Trademark Law and Trademark Rules, failing which the Customs Department will release the goods.

Are there any time-sensitive considerations that brand owners should be aware of when dealing with customs-related IP enforcement?

Upon the Customs Department’s acceptance of an application for a suspension order, the applicant must pay a security as directed within five working days from the date of notification of acceptance of the application, or else the application will be rejected. After the Customs Department issues a notification regarding its suspension order upon finding counterfeit goods, rights holders must take legal action (e.g., apply for a provisional measure at the Court of Intellectual Property Rights) within 15 days (or three days for perishable goods) from the date of the notification. If appropriate, the Customs Department may grant an extension of another 15 days before the expiration of the first 15 days.

What are the potential costs involved in working with customs officials to protect a brand’s intellectual property?

A customs recordation for a registered mark can be filed at no cost. However, the rights holder must pay a security (the amount has yet to be specified) to the Customs Department for an application for a suspension order to protect its intellectual property rights against cross-border trade. (No precedent is yet available.)

Can you provide examples of successful collaborations between international companies and customs authorities that have resulted in tangible results?

No precedents or examples under the Trademark Law are currently available. The Trademark Law came into effect on April 1, 2023, and the IPD commenced full operations on April 26, 2023. Therefore, registrations of all filed marks filed under the Trademark Law are still pending as of October 2023. Customs recordation or suspension orders for marks can be made only after the marks are successfully registered under the Trademark Law.

What proactive strategies can brand owners employ to enhance their partnership with customs officials?

Myanmar has implemented its new first-to-file system for statutory protection of trademarks following the enforcement of the Trademark Law. Registration under the Trademark Law is mandatory for mark owners to claim their exclusive rights over a mark. Brand owners should apply to register their marks under the country’s Trademark Law to secure their intellectual property rights, then make a customs recordation with the Customs Department upon successful registration of the mark to enjoy protection with regard to cross-border trade.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More