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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2024
The popularity of the franchise business model has been growing rapidly in Southeast Asia in recent years, with some of the world’s top brands becoming common sights in the commercial districts and shopping malls of major regional cities in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. While for most countries in this part of the world, franchising has not been explicitly mentioned in legislation, well prepared franchise business operations can comfortably adapt to each country’s regulatory framework, and the growth is poised to continue even as the global retail sector redesigns and redoubles its efforts in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. In fact, the franchise business model, which is both global and hyper-local at once, is one of the most promising solutions that entrepreneurs are turning to in their quest to overcome the challenges of the new economic reality. The Regional Guide to Franchising Law in Southeast Asia provides key, up-to-date insights into the legal frameworks regulating franchise operations in these Southeast Asian countries, and helps brand owners understand the most relevant laws, authorities, and procedures for their business. Some of the essential topics covered for each jurisdiction include considerations in negotiating and designing franchise agreements, protecting intellectual property rights, and important information on judicial and arbitral procedures should a dispute arise between franchisor and franchisee. Practitioners from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam contributed to guide—not only by providing legal expertise on the laws and mechanisms applicable in each jurisdiction, but also by examining strategies for establishing and running resilient franchise operations in Southeast Asia. The full guide can be accessed as a PDF through the button below.
Read More
August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More
August 30, 2024
With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July
Read More