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 After the customs recordation is made, any information amended or withdrawn for the registered mark at the IPD must also be provided to the Customs Department within three working days, together with any necessary documentation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​ 

September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More
August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More