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Currently, however, there are no comprehensive IP laws in Myanmar, and the country’s limited IP regime is substantially outdated.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​ 

December 17, 2025
Vietnam’s National Assembly approved wide-ranging amendments to the Intellectual Property (IP) Law on December 10, 2025, marking one of the most significant overhauls of the country’s IP regime in recent years. The changes, which supplement and refine existing provisions, are designed to align Vietnam’s framework more closely with international standards while addressing practical challenges faced by rights holders and practitioners. The amendments will come into force on April 1, 2026. The most notable changes are detailed below. Recognition of partial and nonphysical industrial designs: Industrial design protection has been broadened to cover partial designs and nonphysical forms (class 32), explicitly extending rights to parts of products that are not independently circulated as well as digital and intangible product appearances. The law clarifies that the external appearances of nonphysical products are protected industrial designs, and circulation of digital copies of any part of that appearance will be treated as an act of using the industrial design. The provision on the industrial applicability of industrial designs has also been amended accordingly to include the uniform reproduction of nonphysical products in cyberspace. Resolving conflicts between overlapping rights: The IP Law provides a safeguard against conflicts when a single subject matter is protected by multiple IP rights. Where overlapping rights exist, the later-arising right will be terminated if its exercise interferes with the normal exploitation of an earlier right. The decision to terminate such a later right rests with the court. Use of published data for AI training: Organizations and individuals may use lawfully published and publicly accessible documents and data for scientific research, testing, and AI system training. Such use must not unreasonably prejudice the rights or legitimate interests of authors or IP rights holders. Where the documents and data fall under copyright or related rights protection, their use must also comply
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
November 26, 2025
On November 21, 2025, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Notification No. 103/2025 promulgating the Geographical Indication Rules (GI Rules), establishing a comprehensive framework for the registration and administration of geographical indications (GI), which are primarily governed by the Trademark Law of 2019. On the same day, the MOC released Notification No. 104/2025 specifying the required forms for GI-related matters. The GI Rules establish a comprehensive set of procedures for the entire GI application process, including filing applications, oppositions, cancellations, and invalidations, and appointing a local representative for GI-related matters. Under the Trademark Law and the GI Rules, domestic and foreign legal entities (organizations) that formally represent a defined group of stakeholders (such as producers or manufacturers of natural products or resources, agricultural products, handicrafts, or industrial products) and other competent authorities from government departments are eligible to apply for GI registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) in Myanmar. Application A GI application can be submitted in either English or Myanmar language electronically, in person, or via post. Foreign applicants seeking to register a GI in Myanmar are required to submit a copy of the registration certificate from their country of origin with the GI application. This certificate must explicitly state the GI name of the protected product. Notably, foreign applicants are mandated to appoint a local representative in Myanmar to act on their behalf for GI-related matters with the IPD and appeal-related matters with the IP Agency. The form for appointing the local representative must be duly notarized in the applicant’s home country to ensure its legal validity and acceptance in accordance with the GI Rules. Application for Use of GI Logo Pursuant to the GI Rules, any interested individual, local or foreign, may submit an application to the IPD for authorization to use the GI logo,
Read More
November 21, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Asia IP’s ASEAN Guide to IP Protection 2025, an annual reference covering key developments and practical considerations for intellectual property systems across Southeast Asia. The chapter offers an overview of Thailand’s current legal framework for the protection of trademarks, patents, industrial designs, and copyrights. It summarizes registration requirements, recent regulatory updates, and procedural considerations relevant to rights holders and practitioners. The chapter offers actionable insights for rights holders at every stage of the IP lifecycle and addresses practical strategies for managing portfolios, anticipating enforcement challenges, and maximizing the value of IP assets. The authors also highlight recent trends and developments in Thai IP law, ensuring that readers are equipped with the latest knowledge to inform their decisions. The complete Thailand chapter can be downloaded through the button below, and the chapter is also available on the Asia IP website.
Read More