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

November 24, 2016

Franchising in Myanmar: Navigating the Local Requirements

Informed Counsel

Take a walk along Bogyoke Aung San Road in downtown Yangon, and you will see longyi-clad men and teenagers in school uniforms with thanaka-painted faces digging their fingers into golden pieces of fried chicken in Myanmar’s first KFC outlet. Across the street from KFC, patrons of Yakun Coffee & Toast, a popular Singaporean chain, can be seen devouring their kaya and butter toast as the sweet aroma of Hainanese coffee lingers in the afternoon air.

After emerging from decades of international isolation, Myanmar has seen a huge influx of foreign businesses attracted to the country’s wealth of resources, emerging middle class, and youthful population. Global food and beverage franchises such as the famous Swensen’s ice cream parlor, South Korea’s Lotteria fried chicken, Taiwanese bubble tea chain Chatime, and Australian-owned Gloria Jean’s Coffees have also entered the market in the past few years. Most recently, Burger King opened its first outlet in the new Yangon International Airport Terminal One.

In the context of this growing trend for franchises in Myanmar, it is essential for franchisors to have a firm understanding of the local requirements. This article discusses the process for establishing a franchise business in Myanmar and the pitfalls to avoid when entering this market.

Business Vehicles

Myanmar does not have franchise-specific legislation. Commercial relationships, including franchises, are mainly governed by the Contract Act 1872, Myanmar Companies Act 1914, Foreign Investment Law 2012, and Foreign Investment Rules 2013, along with a range of notifications issued by various ministries from time to time.

While it is common for foreign franchisors to want to retain absolute control over their local operations, or at least have a stake in the locally incorporated master franchisee, this may not be feasible for certain types of business. For instance, the import, export, and sale of goods are almost exclusively reserved for local Myanmar citizens or 100 percent locally owned Myanmar companies. And under Notification 26/2016 of the Myanmar Investment Commission, foreign investment in the retail and food and beverage sectors can only be made through a joint venture with a local partner.

Not all sectors, however, are bound by these restrictions. Under Notification 26/2016, foreign franchisors in certain service sectors, including fitness centers, hair salons, and laundry, are allowed to incorporate a 100 percent foreign-owned local entity to act as a master franchisee in Myanmar.

Tax Liabilities

Foreign franchisors should be aware of tax liabilities in Myanmar, such as withholding taxes on royalties for licenses and the use of intellectual property (IP) rights such as trademarks and patents. Under Notification 167/2011 of the Ministry of Planning and Finance, the current withholding tax rates for such royalties are 15 percent for resident foreigners and 20 percent for nonresident foreigners.

Franchise fees are also subject to 2 percent withholding tax for resident foreigners and 3.5 percent withholding tax for nonresident foreigners. Myanmar has existing double tax agreements with seven countries—the United Kingdom, Laos, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam—although foreign investors who want to obtain relief under these double tax agreements will have to apply to the Ministry of Planning and Finance separately.

IP Protection

There is currently no legal or regulatory framework for IP protection in Myanmar. Pending the enactment of relevant IP laws, owners of IP rights, such as trademarks and patents, can record such rights by filing a declaration of ownership at the Office of Registration of Deeds.

Enforcement of IP rights can be based both on common law and on a number of provisions in old legislation such as the Code of Criminal Procedure, Myanmar Penal Code 1860, Specific Relief Act 1877, and Merchandise Marks Act 1889, although authorities are typically reluctant to attend to cases where the plaintiff or claimant does not have a declaration of ownership over the IP rights concerned.

Franchisors must be diligent in protecting their IP rights in a country that does not have an intellectual property framework. All core trademarks to a franchise should be filed with the Office of Registration of Deeds, followed by the publication of trademark cautionary notices in local newspapers and journals. Copies of franchise agreements and trademark license agreements should also be recorded at the Office of Registration of Deeds.

Online Presence

Franchisors who want to have a localized website with a “.mm” country code top-level domain should secure their domain name registrations with the Myanmar Network Information Center as soon as possible. With increased public access to the Internet, enabled by rapid developments in telecommunications infrastructure, there has been a rise in domain name squatters in Myanmar. And because there is a lack of legislation governing activities in cyberspace, as well as a lack of domain name dispute resolution mechanisms, international businesses do not have a proper avenue to institute claims over their domain names registered by third parties in bad faith.

Foreign franchisors should also put in place a comprehensive social media policy to govern their online presence through their local franchisees. If customers make public reviews and complaints on social media, there is a significant risk of a public relations crisis if they are not handled appropriately.

In addition, businesses should be careful when launching marketing campaigns—the Competition Law 2015, which will enter into force on February 24, 2017, according to Notification 69/2015 of the President’s Office, restricts comparative advertising of businesses with similar goods and services, and it prohibits deceptive advertising.

Importation and Product Registration

As discussed above, foreign-owned businesses are not allowed to import products into Myanmar—this is only allowed if the imported products are for their internal operational use. Therefore, if a foreign franchisor wants to import a product for sale, it is necessary to rely on a local partner to do this.

Registration with the relevant authorities is also required for certain products, such as food. Applications to the Food and Drug Administration in Myanmar can only be lodged by a local entity. Therefore, foreign franchisors will again need to entrust their local counterparts, such as a local master franchisee, with such registration matters.

Confidential Information

The protection of post-termination interests should begin even before the start of a business relationship. Franchisors should sign nondisclosure agreements with potential franchisees prior to sharing their franchise disclosure documents.

As to exclusivity and noncompete clauses, which are inherent features of franchise relationships, Section 27 of the Myanmar Contract Act 1872 appears to prohibit the inclusion of such clauses in franchise agreements by stating that “every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, is to that extent void.”

However, while post-termination restrictions are generally difficult to enforce, exclusivity clauses applicable during the term of an agreement can be carefully worded to restrict
negative covenants to a certain type of business and geographical area.

Dispute Resolution

Including arbitration clauses in franchise agreements is increasingly common these days. With the enactment of the Arbitration Law 2016 in January this year, foreign arbitral awards are now enforceable in Myanmar in accordance with the country’s obligations under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. This is positive news for the business community, which often elects to have disputes resolved outside the country due to Myanmar’s archaic legal regime.

Foreign investors that want to expand their geographical footprint into Myanmar should tread carefully in navigating the country’s regulatory landscape. Although the growing Myanmar market is attractive for business, there are a number of important differences to franchising in Myanmar that foreign franchisors should carefully observe.

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
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
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
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