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​ 

December 22, 2022
Rules for franchising in Indonesia were first published in 1997 through a government regulation and a ministerial decree, which was subsequently amended several times. The franchising regulations currently in effect are Government Regulation No. 42 of 2007 concerning Franchises and Regulation issued by the Minister of Trade No. 71 of 2019 concerning the Implementation of Franchising (MOT No. 71 of 2019). Franchises in Indonesia must meet certain criteria that distinguish them from other types of businesses, and franchising must be based on a franchise agreement governed by Indonesian law. Prior to entering into a franchise agreement, a franchisor must provide a prospectus (disclosure document) to the prospective franchisee at least two weeks before the execution of the franchise agreement so that the prospective franchisee has sufficient time to review the reputation and goodwill of the franchisor through the prospectus. The prospectus must contain various details about the franchise business, its management, its operations, and other relevant aspects. Both local and foreign franchisors must obtain a franchise registration certificate—referred to as an STPW—from the Ministry of Trade before offering their franchises to prospective franchisees. The franchisee is also required to obtain an STPW. The STPW for the franchisor is the proof of prospectus registration, while the STPW for the franchisee is the proof of registration of the franchise agreement. Franchisors and franchisees who have STPWs are required to submit reports on franchise business activities to the Ministry of Trade’s director of business development and distribution by the end of June each year. Up to three written warnings will be served on a franchisor or franchisee who does not comply with the registration requirements. A fine of up to IDR 100 million (approx. USD 6,400) will be imposed if the franchisor or franchisee fails to respond to the warnings. MOT No.
Read More
December 19, 2022
On November 22, 2022, the Thai cabinet approved in principle the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act (the “Bill”) proposed by the Office of the Consumer Protection Board. While Thailand’s Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 (2008) deals with liability to consumers arising from unsafe products, the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act aims to ensure that consumers are well protected from defects in appliances and vehicles that might not initially be easily visible or noticed. Key Definitions The Bill applies most notably to business operators and consumers. In the Bill, a “business operator” who may potentially be liable is: a manufacturer (or its hirer) of goods for sale; or a consignee or importer who brings goods into Thailand for sale; or a seller or a hire purchase provider who cannot identify the manufacturer (or its hirer) or the importer. As opposed to the Product Liability Act, which clearly provides that all business operators in the supply chain must be jointly liable, the Bill lacks such clear guidance. This could be interpreted as meaning that under the current Bill only the business operator at the top of the supply chain who is sued in the same case as other business operators is responsible. A “consumer” is defined as a purchaser or hirer of goods from a manufacturer, including an assignee or successor of the goods from the purchaser or hirer. Scope and Application The Bill is intended to govern purchase or hire-purchase contracts for: electric appliances; electronic devices; personal cars and motorcycles; other goods that may be set out in a future royal decree issued under the act. The Bill will not apply to any purchase or hire purchase of used products or as-is products when this is clearly stated by the seller or hire-purchase provider or the auctioneer in
Read More
November 29, 2022
Cambodia’s new Sub-Decree on the Management of Commercial Advertising of Products and Services, issued November 4, 2022, is a notable step in ensuring that advertisers comply with advertising regulations, advertise ethically and legally, and avoid deceiving or misleading consumers. The sub-decree regulates both traditional advertising (e.g., print, broadcast, display, etc.) and digital forms (e.g., social media, online, mobile, etc.), and also includes provisions that address advertising alongside rewards—a popular method of advertising in Cambodia. The Ministry of Commerce is the authority tasked with issuing certificates of advertising compliance (more below) and is responsible for monitoring and assessing the compliance of advertisements with this sub-decree and related regulations. The ministry also enforces against unfair advertising through its Consumer Protection, Competition and Fraud Repression Directorate-General (CCF). Key Issues The sub-decree addresses a range of key issues relevant to companies advertising products and services in Cambodia. Licensing The sub-decree does not appear to set new licensing or permit requirements, but it requires advertisements for products and services to comply with the sub-decree, any existing regulations (unless they contradict the sub-decree), and future regulations. If regulations require a license for advertising, this should be obtained from the relevant authorities. One example is advertising of pharmaceuticals, which requires a license from the Ministry of Health under existing regulations. Types of Advertisement Under the sub-decree, advertising is divided into two types: advertisements with rewards and advertisement without rewards. Rewards may include souvenirs, lucky draws, and other rewards attached to the purchase of products and services. Forms of Advertisement Forms and means of advertising specified in the sub-regulation include the following: Advertising via audiovisual media such as TV, electronic broadcasting media (including both satellite and cable TV), and so on; Electronic advertising, such as websites, e-mail, electronic messages (in written, voice, or image form), ringtones, social
Read More
October 3, 2022
Impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have led some manufacturers to reduce costs by changing production methods, designs, or machinery, or reducing the number of employees on payroll. While these strategies may reduce costs and help their business survive, they may also result to lower quality goods. In the worst case, however, these poor quality goods may cancel out or even outweigh a manufacturer’s cost savings if the products are deemed to be unsafe for consumers under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (officially the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act). The Product Liability Act has been in force for 14 years. However, there have been few landmark Supreme Court decisions related to it as most cases are settled before the final judgment. Consequently, most business owners have limited knowledge of the precedent cases and are unsure about what actions they can take to manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for claims of damages due to an unsafe product. The Product Liability Act identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators (individuals and entities) as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be penalized under the law: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified; Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements of the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be seen as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer The Product Liability Act defines a “product” as any kind of movable property that has been manufactured or imported for sale—including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding those ruled out by ministerial regulations. Therefore, real estate and services are excluded from the Product Liability Act. However, real estate buyers are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code, and by the
Read More