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 30, 2019

Franchising in Myanmar

This article was first published on Franchise Law Insider—a blog maintained by US Law Firm Quarles & Brady LLP—and was co-authored by Sher Hann Chua, a consultant at Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok and Yangon offices, and Bob Smith, a partner in the Washington, DC office of Quarles & Brady LLP.

Introduction

The relaxation of foreign investment restrictions and a growing, aspiring middle class have encouraged new players to enter Myanmar’s franchising industry in recent years. Previously, franchises in Myanmar predominantly operated in the food and beverage industry; however, in the last few years, the country has witnessed a growth spurt of franchise operations in the services and education sectors. While no official statistics are available on overseas franchises in the country, brands currently present in Myanmar include, among others, Best Western, Europcar, Gloria Jean’s Coffees, Gymboree, KFC, Krispy Kreme, Pingu’s English, and Swensen’s.

Regulations

Myanmar does not currently have any specific legislation regulating franchise relationships. In addition, there are no statutory, pre-sale disclosure requirements. Nevertheless, franchise relations are subject to relevant provisions under other statutes applicable to contracts and business operations in the country, such as the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, the Contract Act 1872, the Myanmar Companies Law 2017, and the Trademark Law 2019.

Intellectual Property

Many franchisors are rightly concerned that a former franchisee will utilize the knowledge and experience gained from running a franchise operation to open a competing business. To prevent this, it is vital for franchisors to protect themselves by using clear and comprehensive language in their franchise agreements.

Myanmar enacted its new Trademark Law and Industrial Designs Law in January 2019, and its Patent Law in March 2019, paving the way for a stronger intellectual property landscape in the country. Under this new system, trademark, industrial design, and patent licenses must be recorded with the intellectual property office to be deemed enforceable in Myanmar. Similarly, under the Science, Technology, and Innovation Law 2018, all agreements on technology transfers must comply with the terms set by the National Council for Science, Technology, and Innovation Development, and must be registered with the designated registrar to be deemed enforceable. Franchisors should take note of these requirements to ensure that they develop a robust intellectual property protection and commercialization framework under their franchise systems.

Competition Law

While Myanmar courts generally honor and enforce contractual terms, a franchisor should be cautious about abusing its bargaining power or imposing conditions that may result in interference in the franchisee’s business operations, as these may violate provisions of local law. Charging different franchise fees to different franchisees may raise anti-competitive concerns. Restrictive covenants prohibiting a former franchisee from engaging in a similar business upon the expiration or termination of a franchise relationship should contain carefully drafted limitations on the term and geographical area in which the restrictive covenants are applicable. Further, franchise agreements should also be supplemented by robust provisions prohibiting the disclosure and use of information, knowledge, and trade secrets obtained from operation of the franchise. Under the Competition Law 2015, unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets is an act punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to two years, a fine of up to MMK 10 million (approximately US  $7,700), or both.

Taxation

Initial fees and ongoing royalty fees are subject to a withholding tax payable by a non-resident foreign franchisor at a rate of 15 percent, and by a resident foreign or local franchisor at a rate of 10 percent. For goods sold or services rendered as part of a franchise transaction by the franchisor, such as operational equipment and training fees, a withholding tax of 2.5 percent is applicable for a non-resident foreign franchisor, whereas, since July 1, 2018, no withholding tax is payable by a resident foreign or local franchisor. Subject to the discretion of the Ministry of Planning and Finance and the Internal Revenue Department, the withholding tax amount payable by non-resident foreigners may be reduced or exempted if there are existing double-taxation agreements in place. To date, Myanmar has entered into double-taxation agreements with India, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam.

Dispute Resolution

It is common for foreign franchisors in Myanmar to opt for the franchise agreement to be governed by foreign laws, and for disputes to be settled via arbitration outside of Myanmar, such as in Singapore under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules. In accordance with the Arbitration Law 2016, the default position is that a Myanmar court will not intervene in matters governed by the Arbitration Law 2016, except where the act so provides. Myanmar courts also refer parties to an arbitration agreement if a party so requests before submitting its written statement, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or is incapable of being performed.

As a signatory to the New York Convention, foreign arbitral awards are recognized and enforceable by Myanmar courts, except in certain cases. For example, a Myanmar court may refuse to recognize foreign arbitral awards if it finds that the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Myanmar law, or if the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the national interest. Myanmar courts may also enforce interim orders, orders, and directives given by arbitral tribunals seated both inside and outside of Myanmar. Therefore, unless the dispute arising from a franchise agreement falls within one of the limited exceptions of the Arbitration Law 2016, Myanmar courts are required to honor an election of international arbitration dispute resolution where an arbitration clause has been incorporated into such franchise agreement.

A foreign civil court judgment is enforceable in Myanmar under the Civil Procedure Code, if it was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, was decided on merits, was not obtained by fraud, is not against the principles of natural justice, is in accordance with the principles of international law, and does not sustain a claim founded on breach of any law in force in Myanmar.

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