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

July 18, 2023

Myanmar Sets Out Customs Recordation Rules for Trademark Protection

Subscribe to Updates

On July 14, 2023, Myanmar’s Ministry of Planning and Finance issued Notification No. 50/2023, which sets out the rules, requirements, and procedures for registered trademark owners to protect their intellectual property rights through customs recordation in accordance with the relevant section of the Trademark Law 2019. The notification is accompanied by eight forms to be used in trademark-related customs matters (three for use by applicants and five for use by the Customs Department).

Customs Recordation

Owners of trademarks registered under the Trademark Law 2019 can apply (directly or via a legal representative) for customs recordation to protect against cross-border trade in counterfeit goods bearing their registered marks. Applications using the specified form should attach the required documentary evidence, including any separately specified by the Customs Department.

If the application for recordation is accepted, the Customs Department will provide the applicant with a registration number within 15 days of receiving the application. Recordations are valid for two years from the acceptance date of the application and can be renewed every two years, 30 days before the expiration date.

According to the notification, owners of marks recorded by the Customs Department must notify the department within three working days upon amendment or withdrawal of any information related to the mark at the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and submit any necessary documentation.

Suspension Order

Regardless of whether a customs recordation has been filed, owners of trademarks registered under the Trademark Law 2019 can request a suspension order to prevent the release of goods into free circulation by laying out sufficient grounds for believing that counterfeit goods are being or will be imported into the country. Applications can be in English or Myanmar language, and a translation may be required upon the Customs Department’s request. Applications can be submitted in person, by post, or electronically.

The Customs Department will notify the applicant of the outcome of the application within 30 days of receiving it. If it is accepted, the applicant must pay a security (amount not yet specified) as directed within five working days of the date of the suspension order; otherwise, the application will be rejected.

Non-applicable Goods

Intellectual property enforcement measures by the Customs Department cannot be carried out in relation to the following goods under this notification:

  • Goods below the threshold for collecting duties and taxes (de minimis goods);
  • Transshipment cargo;
  • Reshipment cargo;
  • Retention cargo;
  • Transit trade cargo; and
  • Goods imported with the government’s approval as required by the public interest or an emergency situation.

Outcomes of Recordation or Suspension

If the Customs Department, upon its inspection based on customs recordation or after accepting a suspension order, finds sufficient evidence that imported goods are using counterfeit marks as suspected, it will suspend the goods from free circulation in Myanmar and administer the suspended goods in accordance with the decision of the Customs Department’s director general or the IPD’s order.

For more information on these customs recordation measures, or on any aspect of protecting intellectual property in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
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
Read More
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,
Read More