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 27, 2014

Myanmar: An Emerging IP Regime Begins to Take Shape

Subscribe to Updates
Intellectual Property Magazine

Since Myanmar opened its doors in 2011 and began to reengage with the rest of the global economy, many forward-thinking companies have been eager to enter the local market. Currently, however, there are no comprehensive IP laws in Myanmar, and the country’s limited IP regime is substantially outdated. For instance, the Copyright Act only recognizes work created in Myanmar by Myanmar nationals, and the Act itself dates back to 1911. The country’s draft trademark law, meanwhile, has been debated extensively for over ten years now, and despite undergoing several amendments, it has yet to be passed.

As the current situation stands, it should not be surprising that IP owners have faced numerous problems enforcing their IP rights in the country. It is quite common to see IP owners running into disputes with local distributors after successfully building a brand in the Myanmar market. Most commonly, the local distributor will infringe on an IP owner’s rights by creating its own brand that slavishly copies the main features of the original brand and then registering this new brand in Myanmar. It remains possible to record this type of confusingly similar trademark, without the legitimate IP owner becoming aware of it, as Myanmar does not yet have in place any type of examination process or trademark search process.

Existing Legal Regime

Despite the absence of a specific law governing trademarks, many brand owners have already taken steps to protect their trademark rights under Myanmar’s existing system by relying on the current Registration Act and recording their marks with the Office of the Registry of Deeds and Assurances. This interim system of protection allows an IP owner to protect a trademark by filing an application to record a Declaration of Ownership. When the Declaration of Ownership has been recorded, the trademark will be protected for three years from the date of registration.

There is no substantive examination stage for recordations, and so the recordation system allows for more than one owner to record ownership of the same mark. Following the recordation of the Declaration of Ownership, it is recommended that a Cautionary Notice of the registered mark be published in a local newspaper or in a periodical, to remind the public of the mark’s ownership and to warn against possible passing off or infringement. For the protection of a patent and/or design, an owner can follow a similar process by recording a Declaration of Ownership and subsequently publishing a Cautionary Notice with a local newspaper.

As stated above, however, it is not yet possible to conduct official searches, lodge oppositions, or file cancellation proceedings against trademark or patent applications before they are recorded in Myanmar. It is therefore possible for an identical trademark or patent to be recorded by more than one party. A rightful IP owner who wishes to remove registered similar or identical trademarks or infringing patents can file a civil suit to cancel such registrations with the court.

Trademark Enforcement

For civil prosecutions, actual commercial use of a mark in Myanmar is very important in proving who has a better right over a mark, because the Myanmar courts place significant weight on use to determine proprietorship over trademarks. In order to be persuasive, it will be necessary to show both the registration date of the Declaration and the date of first use of the mark in Myanmar. It is on this basis that the issue of better right will be decided by the court.

An IP owner can launch a civil suit against an infringer for trademark infringement under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act to obtain a permanent injunction. In addition, the owner may claim damages caused by such infringement.

Under the Myanmar Civil Procedure Code, when a complaint is filed and the accused does not deny the allegation, this is deemed to be an admission, unless the accusation is made against a disabled person. This mechanism significantly expedites the civil procedure in trademark infringement cases. Intellectual property right infringement cases are handled by the Township/District/State Courts, the Regional Courts, or the Supreme Court based on the amount of compensation the plaintiff is seeking.

For criminal prosecutions, under Sections 482, 483, 485, and 486 of the Penal Code, trademark infringement is considered a criminal offense, for which both a fine and imprisonment can be imposed. The Merchandise Marks Act in the Penal Code prescribes the penalty for applying a false trade description. The court can confiscate all of the counterfeit goods and items used in the commission of infringement.

Draft IP Laws

Since 2012, the Myanmar government has issued numerous laws in support of business and investment, such as the Foreign Investment Law, the Media Law, the Consumer Protection Law, and the Printing and Publishing Law.

In an effort to shape Myanmar’s laws to meet international standards, several prominent international organizations responsible for IP, including the World Intellectual Property Organization, the ASEAN Intellectual Property Association, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the International Trademark Association, have been actively involved in the country’s legislative process.

According to various Myanmar-based news outlets, four draft IP laws are under consideration and will, at some point, be reviewed by parliament. These four laws relate to trademarks, patents, industrial designs, and copyrights.

To date, however, the patent, industrial design, and copyright drafts have not yet been disclosed to the public. The trademark bill, on the other hand, has been well publicized and is now in its eleventh draft. It is likely that the trademark law will be the first IP law to be enacted, although uncertainty remains about its timing. Previously, the trademark law was expected to come into effect in October 2013, but it was postponed to July 2014, and has now been delayed once again. This poses as a serious impediment for growing businesses and investments that need IP protection.

The Trademark Law’s Tenth Draft

As the eleventh draft of the trademark law has been kept confidential, the tenth draft—which remains subject to change as it proceeds through the legislative process—provides some guidance on what IP owners can expect from the country’s new IP regime.

The tenth draft of the trademark law provides protection for  trademarks, service marks, collective marks, certification marks, licenses of registered marks,  series of marks, sounds, smells, and touch marks, including geographical indications, trade names, and customs protection measures for registered marks, trade names, and well-known marks. In order to be deemed registrable, a mark must not fall under the following criteria:

  • Lacking distinctiveness;
  • Similar or identical to others’ registered marks or well-known registered marks;
  • Misleading the public or trade circles;
  • Using the name of plant varieties protected in Myanmar;
  • Infringing others’ IP rights;
  • Filed in bad faith; or
  • In conflict with other restrictions as prescribed by the law.

Procedures Against Registration of Confusingly Similar Marks

The tenth draft of the trademark law sets out a clear process to prevent the registration of confusingly similar marks. After a trademark application has been examined and approved for registration by the Trademark Registrar, the mark will be advertised in a Trademark Gazette for opposition purposes. Opposition can be lodged against trademark applications during the publication period, thus providing trademark owners with an important tool to watch for any marks that are identical or confusingly similar to their own.

In the event than no opposition is filed during the publication period and a mark proceeds to registration, an interested person can file a cancellation action after the mark is registered. Grounds for full or partial cancellation of a trademark registration are as follows:

  • The registered mark falls under any ground of unregistrable marks, as described in the law;
  • The owner of the registered mark is not entitled to the registration; and
  • The registration has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of any prescribed point.

Term of Protection

Under the trademark bill, the term of registration for marks is ten years from the date the application was filed, and the protection is renewable every ten years thereafter. Applications for renewal of a trademark registration can be filed within six months prior to the expiry date. A grace period of six months from the expiry date can be requested, but this carries with it late fees.

Exclusive Rights

According to the tenth draft, the owner of a registered mark shall have the exclusive right, first, to prohibit and prevent a third party from using identical or similar marks for the same or similar goods or services in the course of trade where confusion may arise in the public. In case of the use of an identical symbol or sign for the same goods or services, confusion shall be presumed. Second, a trademark owner has the exclusive right to file litigation, in criminal and/or civil actions, against an alleged infringer.

Good Faith

The draft law carves out a possible defense against infringement based on good-faith use. The owner of a registered mark will not be entitled to prohibit a third party from using the mark in good faith for industrial or commercial purposes if such use involves:

  • The owner’s name or address;
  • Indications concerning kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time of production, or other characteristics of goods or services;
  • Indications in respect of the intended;
  • Purpose of accessories or spare parts; and
  • The Ministry of Health may take measures to limit the use of marks for the purpose of facilitating the prescription of and the access to generic pharmaceutical products and medical devices, or for the purpose of discouraging the public consumption of goods that are deemed prejudicial to health, provided such measures do not unreasonably cause a detriment to the capability of the marks in question to distinguish goods of one undertaking from those of another undertaking.

Use Requirement

Non-use cancellation is available under the draft law. A registered mark is vulnerable to cancellation if the trademark owner fails to use the mark for three consecutive years, commencing from the date of registration, without any sufficient justification.

Future Progress

While waiting for the trademark law to take effect, many expect Myanmar’s IP office to be established in Naypyidaw, Yangon, Mandalay, and in other large cities where IP applications are expected to be submitted. Further regulations, announcements, and publications will be drafted in accordance with the trademark law in order to implement the trademark examination system, procedures, and formal document requirements.

Most importantly, however, the responsible authorities will need to clearly explain how the existing marks, which have previously been recorded at the Office of the Registration of Deeds and remain protected under an existing three-year term, will be treated during the process of transitioning into the new registration system under the trademark law. Once these core issues are settled—and the draft trademark bill is finally passed into law—Myanmar will be well on its way toward hosting a robust IP regime for investors.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More