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​ 

July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related