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

February 7, 2019

Myanmar Passes Industrial Design Law

On January 30, 2019, Myanmar’s long-awaited Industrial Design Law—the first legislation specifically addressing the protection of industrial designs in the jurisdiction’s history—was passed into law.

The law lays out a comprehensive framework for the protection of rights over the external visual design of objects (i.e. the aesthetic design, rather than the practical). It will be implemented through administrative bodies (particularly the Intellectual Property Office) and enabling legislation that will be established and implemented in due course.

Overview

For an industrial design to be registrable under the law it must be domestically and internationally novel (i.e. not disclosed or exhibited to the public and free of imitation) before the application is made, or novel before the date of a priority right application from another jurisdiction was made if applicable.

Successful applications will result in protection for five years from the application date, renewable within six months of expiry for a further five years, twice (i.e. up to a maximum of 15 years in total). Applications filed within six months from the date of filing in a member country of the Paris Convention, or in another World Trade Organization member state, will enjoy a right of priority, and be accorded the same priority date.

Applications for multiple designs can be filed for protection under a single application if these designs fall under the same class in the Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs.

Protection will be enforceable through civil action by the owner(s) of the industrial design, as well as their heirs and assignees where appropriate. The law also establishes several criminal offenses related to fraudulent or dishonest registration, and to unauthorized disclosure of an industrial design, punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and/or fines up MMK 2,000,000 (approximately USD 1,300). 

Establishing the New System

The effective date of the Industrial Design Law will be announced at a later stage. As with the Trademark Law, released at the same time, applications for registration are not yet being accepted under the Industrial Design Law, as the administrative structures necessary to do so are still being established. No timeline has been set out for the required implementing regulations and the establishment of the Intellectual Property Office.

Next Steps for Industrial Design Owners

Although the procedure and administrative bodies for the new system are not yet in place, the new law lays out the documents required for registration, which follow international standards and require substantial evidence of any priority rights, and clear and complete descriptions of the design in question along with an index of its uses and application. Rights owners seeking to extend international protections to Myanmar once the law is in force, or seeking to register new industrial designs in the jurisdiction, would be prudent to audit their portfolios to ensure that such details are easily and quickly available. A comprehensive audit should also cover the company’s operating documents, including employment documents and other contracts, to ensure that the ownership of design rights over work products are properly addressed.

The law is part of a suite of new Intellectual Property laws in the jurisdiction including the Trademark Law, which was issued on the same day, and the Copyright Law and Patent Law, which are expected to be passed in the very near future. Tilleke & Gibbins will continue to provide updates on all four laws as further details emerge.

For more information on this development, or to enquire about any of the steps above, including intellectual property portfolio audits, please contact our Myanmar office at [email protected] or on +95 1 255 208.

 

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
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 on the Chambers and Partners website.