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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More