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

May 9, 2019

Enactment of New IP Laws in Myanmar

Subscribe to Updates
International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI)

Myanmar has finally enacted its long-awaited Trademark Law and Industrial Design Law on January 30, 2019, and its Patent Law was also signed into law on March 11, 2019. The Copyright Bill is expected to be enacted into law soon. A summary of the provisions of the new Trademark Law, Industrial Designs Law and Patent Law is provided below:

Trademark Law

To enjoy statutory protection under the new Trademark Law, all existing trademarks recorded in Myanmar must be registered under the new system. Under this first-to-file system, if two or more parties apply to register identical or similar marks on the same day, the Registrar will instruct the applicants to negotiate amongst themselves before intervening. Applications can be filed in the English or Myanmar languages, but translations must be provided upon request. The availability of multiple class applications is still unclear. Old Declarations of Ownership can be submitted at the time of filing to support the new applications. Registered trademarks will be valid for a period of 10 years from the filing date, and are renewable in perpetuity.

Notably, the substantive examination of applications will not be conducted on relative grounds of refusal. However, the law establishes a statutory publication period of 60 days for interested parties to file oppositions. The law also contains provisions governing the protection of Geographical Indications.

Industrial Design Law

The Industrial Design Law imposes a universal novelty threshold which must be met for industrial designs to be registrable. Registered industrial designs will be protected for an initial term of five years, calculated from the application date. Two further renewal terms of five years each can be filed. Applications for multiple designs can be filed for protection under a single application if these designs fall under the same Locarno class. If two or more parties apply to register identical or similar designs on the same day, the Registrar will instruct the applicants to negotiate amongst themselves before intervening.

Importantly, the law addresses the rights to designs created in the course of employment, allowing employees to claim the rights to such designs if an employer fails to file an application within six months from the date of written notification from the employee.

Patent Law

An invention is patentable under the new Patent Law if it is novel, involves an inventive step, and is industrially applicable. Priority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty or the Paris Convention can be claimed in Myanmar within one year from the date of the initial application. Unless a request for early publication is submitted, applications are published 18 months after the date of application, whereas requests for substantive examination must be submitted within 36 months from the date of application. Granted patents are valid for a term of 20 years from the filing date, while petty patents are valid for 10 years.

In accordance with the extended transition period for meeting obligations under the TRIPS Agreement for Least-Developed Country Members, the Patent Law contains special provisions exempting the protection of pharmaceutical patents until January 1, 2033, and the protection of chemical products used in agriculture, food products, and microbiological products until July 1, 2021, unless the Myanmar government specifies otherwise.

Current Status

Applications for registration under the new system are not yet available, as the administrative structures required are still being established. No timeline has been announced for the required implementing regulations and the establishment of the IP office, as well as the IP courts. Meanwhile, trademark recordals based on the old Registration Act are still accepted, whereas the recordals of patent and industrial design ownership have been suspended since July 2017.

 

This article was first published by AIPPI on April 11, 2019. The original is available on their website, and it is republished here with thanks. 

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More