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​ 

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