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 1, 2019

Myanmar Passes Long-Awaited Trademark Law

Myanmar’s long-awaited Trademark Law was signed into law on January 30, 2019, establishing the framework for a comprehensive trademark registration system open to both foreign and domestic trademark owners.

Once the administrative bodies and enabling legislation to support this system are in place, all existing trademark owners who have recorded their rights under Myanmar’s old system will have to file new applications to protect their marks under the new law.

Overview of the New Law

Trademark registration under the new law will be valid for a period of 10 years from the filing date, renewable every 10 years. Registration is on a first-to-file system (replacing the old first-to-use system of recordal), and trademarks registered in Paris Convention member states benefit from a six-month priority period (which is particularly notable as Myanmar itself is not yet a signatory to the Paris Convention).

The law introduces criminal penalties for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, which range up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of MMK 5 million (approximately USD 3,250), and grants the judiciary the power to establish specific IP courts, although it is not yet clear whether there is any plan to do so in the near future.

The law also establishes the Central Committee for Intellectual Property Rights and the Intellectual Property Rights Agency, which will collectively have jurisdiction over Myanmar’s trademark registration system.

Establishing the New System

It is important to understand that applications for registration are not yet being accepted under the new 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, and as of January 31, new recordal applications, renewals of existing recordals, and all other trademark declarations are still being accepted under the old system.

Next Steps for Trademark Owners

  • Although the procedure and administrative bodies for the new system are not yet in place, the new law does lay out the documents required for registration, which remain substantively unchanged from the previous draft. Rights owners can therefore begin to compile and prepare those documents in advance.
  • The documentary evidence supporting new applications includes proof of existing recordals with the Office of the Registration of Deeds. Although it is not yet clear what weight will be given to these during the trademark examination process, trademark owners should audit their portfolios to ensure that their rights are recorded and up-to-date, to ensure maximum leverage under the new system.
  • Similarly, the law makes reference to providing evidence of use in order to support a trademark application. Trademark holders should therefore begin to collate all evidence of existing use, including cautionary notices (which can still be published), advertisements, office stationery, and other clear evidence of use.
  • For those whose existing marks are subject to licensing arrangements in Myanmar, these too should be audited and checked for up-to-date and accurate depictions of the relationship with franchisees and licensees, to avoid any ambiguities when evidencing use.

The effective date of the Trademark Law will be announced at a later stage, and we will provide details as they become available.

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

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
June 26, 2025
As modern business strategies increasingly embrace sustainability, the influence of ESG principles is reshaping product design, packaging, and brand protection. From label-free bottles to the legal importance of 3D marks in Thailand, these developments highlight the growing connection between environmental responsibility and intellectual property. The Rise of ESG ESG principles have become critical in shaping business strategies worldwide. Companies are increasingly required to disclose ESG data, which influences investor decisions, loans, and consumer behavior. Studies show that consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable packaging, and businesses with strong ESG commitments often achieve higher growth rates. Product Minimization Trend One sector experiencing significant transformation is the consumer product industry, where brands worldwide are adapting their packaging to align with ESG principles. A notable approach is packaging minimization, exemplified by Pepsi’s introduction of its first label-free PET bottle in China in 2022. Similarly, in Thailand, several bottled water brands have embraced label-free designs, including Sprinkle drinking water’s “Redesign to Reduce” initiative and other similar efforts. These shifts not only enhance brand perception but are also warmly welcomed by consumers and business associates alike. For instance, Cathay Pacific has introduced label-free bottled water on select flights and cabins as part of their ongoing commitment to boosting onboard recycling efforts. From Design to Distinctiveness with 3D Marks Packaging has evolved into a critical component of brand identity, blending functionality with distinctiveness to strengthen consumer recognition and loyalty. This shift carries significant implications for intellectual property. Protecting these designs is no longer optional but essential, given their substantial commercial value. Securing legal protection—whether through design rights or three-dimensional (3D) trademarks—has become a strategic necessity. In an era shaped by sustainability and innovation, safeguarding distinctive packaging is not just a precaution but a fundamental step in maintaining competitive advantage and ensuring enduring brand
June 20, 2025
In a decisive move to strengthen its trade position and reinforce commitments under ongoing tariff negotiations with the United States, the government of Vietnam has made a concerted effort to improve intellectual property enforcement within the country. A key catalyst for this was the prime minister issuing a decision requesting all authorities to initiate sweeping enforcement actions to crack down on counterfeit goods across all provinces. Our firm has been actively involved in these operations. Working in close coordination with Vietnam’s Market Surveillance Authority, Customs, and Border Police, the firm has been instrumental in planning, intelligence gathering, and on-site enforcement. Key operations were conducted in major commercial hubs, including Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. In Hanoi, we collaborated with Market Surveillance Team No. 1 to inspect a major wholesaler in Hang Giay. These inspections resulted in the seizure of a significant volume of counterfeit perfumes and the identification of key suppliers within the illegal trade network. In Ho Chi Minh City, our firm supported large-scale inspection campaigns at well-known markets, including Saigon Square. Acting on intelligence, authorities executed multiple raids targeting shops and stalls notorious for selling counterfeit branded products. Specialists from our firm provided logistical support and real-time analysis to ensure swift and effective intervention. Beyond Vietnam’s urban centers, efforts extended to critical border zones in northern and central Vietnam. We worked with Customs and Border Police at major checkpoints to inspect high-risk shipments suspected of containing counterfeit goods. These operations led to the interception of several container loads of illicit products. The nationwide campaign also included targeted actions in several provinces known as hubs for storage and distribution. In Bac Giang, Da Nang, Hai Phong, Kien Giang, and Dong Nai, we assisted in coordinated raids on medium- to large-scale warehouses and distribution centers. These inspections uncovered
June 17, 2025
On January 9, 2025, the Lao official gazette published the newly amended Decision on Trade Inspection Implementation No. 0019/MOIC, dated January 6, 2025. This decision aims to establish principles and rules for trade officers to inspect, fine, and take measures against violators of trade laws and their related regulations on business competition, business operations, and intellectual property rights to protect consumers and business operators in Laos. Changes in Trade Inspection Procedures Previously, trade inspection officers, operating independently under the central Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) or the provincial-level Department of Industry and Commerce (DOIC), were responsible for administrative raid actions focusing exclusively on intellectual property issues. However, following the enactment of Decision No. 0019/MOIC, trade inspection officers will now be grouped into the Trade Officers Unit, which will also include business competition officers and consumer protection officers. This unit will conduct and participate in raids, considering not only intellectual property laws but also competition and consumer protection laws when imposing penalties on infringers. Trade Inspection Authority Levels Trade inspection implementation is overseen by authorities at three levels: Central level: Department of Business Competition and Trade Inspection, MOIC. The MOIC handles trade inspection work covering all provinces in Laos. Provincial level: DOIC offices in provinces and Vientiane handle trade inspections covering two or more districts. District level: Office of the Industry and Commerce offices in districts. Violations Individuals, legal entities, and organizations violating the newly amended trade inspection decision, the Decree on Trade Inspection, or other related regulations will be educated about the issue, warned, disciplined (for government servants), fined, subject to compensation for damage incurred, or punished by the relevant laws, depending on the gravity of the violation. Trade Violations Violations of trade laws and regulations concerning business operations will result in fines and additional measures. Examples include: