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

December 21, 2020

Myanmar: Trademark Filing Changes and Challenges

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On August 28, 2020, the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) announced that the “soft-opening period” to refile trademarks under the country’s new Trademark Act would begin on October 1, 2020. This period, which is open to holders of trademarks recorded under Myanmar’s old system and to trademark owners who can prove prior use of their trademarks in the country, is expected to run for six months, though no closing date was stipulated in the MOC announcement. The date of the eventual “grand opening” of the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) will be the filing date for all applications submitted during the soft-opening period.

What are the changes?

  1. Filing procedure – Under the old system, brand owners (or their agents) had to manually file an original notarized declaration of ownership and legalized power of attorney with the Office of Registration of Deeds (ORD) under the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation, which would then proceed with recordation. Under the new system, online filing is now in place, the original hard copies are not required, and the authority is the IPD of the Ministry of Commerce.
  2. Priority rights – With the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019, Myanmar is changing from its former first-to-use system to a first-to-file one. In addition to the IPD, all concerned authorities, such as the police and the courts, will need to adjust to the new paradigm for defining the rights of trademark owners.
  3. Examination procedure – Under the old system as defined under the Registration Act, there was no actual examination of the registrability of a mark; rather, registration could be refused if the officer felt that the mark was likely to be morally or legally objectionable, or likely to hurt the religious sensibilities of any Myanmar citizens. This is changed under the new system, and all trademarks registered under the old system and already used will be examined under the provisions of the Trademark Law 2019 before being published in the Trademark Gazette, upon which any interested person may file an opposition.

What are the challenges?

  1. Trademark volume – According to an unofficial announcement before the soft opening period, there are around 100,000 or more trademark declarations recorded under the old system. Moreover, the recordation of these trademarks was done manually, with the original declarations returned to the trademark owner after registration. There is no official search facility or database, and the ORD keeps its records confidential. Since many trademark owners want to claim protection under the Trademark Law 2019, the IPD must ensure that their online system and server can support the expected high volume of trademark filings.
  2. Examination process – In addition to considering how many trademarks will be refiled under the new Trademark Law, the IPD will need to determine the procedures for examining all newly refiled trademarks, as well as how long this process will take—particularly in light of the high volume.
  3. Using the online system – With the change to online filing, training and guidance for the users who will be essential to educate them not only on how to use the online system, but also about the law and the purpose of each requirement. Failing to provide this could result in serious delays for the registrar and IPD staff, and instability of the online system.

The soft-opening period to refile trademarks is the culmination of a long period of laying the groundwork for an updated IP protection regime in Myanmar. In the coming months and years, IP owners can expect to see progressive implementation of all four of Myanmar’s recently enacted IP laws, resulting in a truly modern system that spurs growth and competition in the country.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
On August 6, 2026, the National Bank of Cambodia (NBC) issued a notice calling on business owners that issue electronic money, such as e-wallet accounts and stored-value membership cards, to notify the central bank within 90 days. The notice targets businesses that are not licensed banking or financial institutions or payment service providers, but have been issuing e-money to facilitate payments within their own networks. Failure to notify the NBC may result in legal action. Background and Regulatory Basis The NBC has observed that certain businesses, including cafes, restaurants, transportation companies, entertainment centers, and gas stations, have been issuing e-money through e-wallet accounts in mobile apps or membership cards to facilitate customer payments for products or services within their own networks. Customers create e-wallet accounts and load balances to pay for goods or services at the issuing business. The NBC describes this as “single-purpose e-money.” Under the 1999 Law on Banking and Financial Institutions, providing payment facilities to customers forms part of the operations of banking and financial institutions and requires an NBC license. In addition, article 20 of the 2017 Prakas on the Management of Payment Service Institutions further prohibits legal entities other than banking and financial institutions and payment service institutions from issuing e-money. However, article 20 also provides that issuing e-money in certain limited cases does not require a license, but the NBC must be notified in advance in writing. A business may issue single-purpose e-money without a payment service institution license provided it meets all the following conditions and submits written notice to the NBC: The maximum balance per account is KHR 200,000 (approximately USD 50) or equivalent. The total aggregate balance across all accounts does not exceed KHR 800 million (approximately USD 200,000) or equivalent. The e-money is used to pay for products or
Read More
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
Read More