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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation