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​ 

May 26, 2025
On May 21, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published a press release signaling heightened regulation of digital platforms in response to the influx of products from foreign countries being sold in Thailand via e-commerce platforms. In recent years, the rapid expansion of cross-border multi-sided e-commerce platforms has unlocked unprecedented growth, but it has also flooded Thailand’s digital marketplaces with low-cost imports sold by unregulated foreign vendors via these platforms, unfairly undercutting local merchants’ market share and exposing consumers to uneven product quality. According to the press release, the TCCT announced progress on drafting new guidelines on unfair trade practices, monopolistic conduct, and competition restraint by multi-sided e-commerce platforms at a recent meeting of the Management Committee for Addressing Issues of Foreign Goods and Businesses Violating Laws. This regulatory push is part of a broader governmental effort to tackle issues stemming from the foregoing that create uneven playing fields and undermine consumer welfare. The draft guidelines are designed to regulate platform operators and their complex and multidimensional trade relations that cause network effects and distort competition. The forthcoming guidelines, to be issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), will undergo public consultation to ensure platform operators, the public, and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide input before they are finalized and enforced. The guidelines are seen as an important priority, with the minister of commerce urging swift implementation of the measures to achieve the government’s objectives. In addition to the legislative advancement, one of the TCCT commissioners has been appointed to advise a subcommittee on preventing nominee arrangements by foreign investors and a subcommittee dedicated to promoting Thai SMEs and eliminating poor-quality imports. The appointee will also support the nationwide task force against illegal foreign products in overseeing proactive field operations and comprehensive
Read More
May 6, 2025
On May 2, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT), in cooperation with the OECD, held a conference to discuss the results of the OECD Peer Review of Thailand’s competition law and policy. This review, conducted under the second phase of the OECD-Thailand Country Program, marks a significant milestone in Thailand’s ongoing institutional reform. Tilleke & Gibbins’ trade competition experts were invited to participate in both the program and the conference. The OECD Peer Review aimed to assess the current state of Thailand’s legal and regulatory environment surrounding competition law and policies, pinpoint strengths and weaknesses, and offer recommendations on potential future development. This article highlights the review’s key findings and recommendations, and their implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Institutional Framework: Room for Improvement Competition law in Thailand has undergone significant transformation, particularly since the enactment of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA). This landmark legislation aimed to revolutionize the competition regime, notably by amending important legal provisions to enhance public enforcement capabilities and establishing the TCCT as an independent authority separate from government ministries, endowed with its own budget and powers to enforce competition law across key areas: anticompetitive agreements, abuse of dominant market positions, merger control, and unfair trade practices. The goal was to create a more efficient, flexible, and independent agency and to prevent political intervention. However, the OECD Peer Review points out a major impediment. The TCCT faces considerable budget and human resource constraints, which may impact its enforcement capacity. Its budget is comparatively low by international and regional standards, and only a fraction of its staff is dedicated to core competition enforcement (merger control and anticompetitive behavior). Furthermore, there is room for the TCCT to continue its improvements in expertise and efficiency—areas the TCCT has been attempting to shore up
Read More
May 2, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the latest edition of Doing Business in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that offers an overview of key legal considerations for companies operating in jurisdictions worldwide. The contribution outlines the country’s legal and regulatory framework for foreign investment and business operations and reflects the latest legislative developments. The chapter addresses the following core topics: Legal system: Structure of the courts and the codified nature of Thai law. Foreign investment: Business restrictions under the Foreign Business Act, sector-specific regulations, exchange control rules, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Overview of partnerships, private and public limited companies, and other legal entities. Employment: Labor protections, employment contracts, foreign worker requirements, and termination procedures. Tax: Corporate and personal income tax, indirect taxes, and tax obligations for residents and non-residents. Intellectual property: Registration and enforcement of patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights. Data protection: Key provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act and related compliance obligations. Competition law: Regulatory framework under the Trade Competition Act. Anti-bribery and corruption: Relevant legislation and enforcement mechanisms. E-commerce and digital business: Legal regime for online transactions and digital platforms. Marketing and advertising: Consumer protection laws and regulations affecting advertising and marketing practices. Product regulation and liability: Safety standards, liability regimes, and roles of enforcement authorities. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The insurance and reinsurance guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the guide, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More
April 29, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually
Read More