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

May 28, 2021

Myanmar’s New IP Department and Its Extended “Soft-Opening” Period

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

While the timeline for the ongoing “soft opening” of Myanmar’s new Intellectual Property Department (IPD) lacks clarity, the IPD has maintained continuity in its operations. The soft-opening period, which began on October 1, 2020, was first announced by the Ministry of Commerce in Order No. 63/2020, dated August 28, 2020. The order did not mention the closing date of the soft-opening period, but many were counting on the soft-opening period finishing after six months.

This assumption stemmed from the IPD’s workshops in 2020 about the upcoming implementation of the new Trademark Law, when officers indicated that the soft-opening period was expected to continue for at least six months, depending on the volume of applications received. Therefore, it was thought that the soft-opening period would conclude at the end of March 2021. However, this date has come and gone, and trademark owners are increasingly expressing their concerns about when—and whether—the soft opening period will end.

No announcement appears forthcoming, either. The political volatility that has gripped Myanmar since the military seized power on February 1, 2021, has affected virtually all operations in the country, including government operations. As a result, no official announcements on the end date for the soft-opening period have been issued. However, the IPD has continued accepting applications for trademarks to be refiled, and has been issuing extensions to applicants who require additional assessment of their trademark portfolio and dossiers.

Aims and Procedures of the Soft-Opening Period

The soft-opening period is a key early stage in the public implementation of Myanmar’s Trademark Law 2019. It allows owners of marks that were registered with the Office of the Registration of Deeds (ORD) under the previous (and antiquated) system and/or actually used in Myanmar to refile their marks with the newly formed IPD under a fully modernized IP regime. In order to do so, trademark owners must have already recorded their trademarks under Myanmar’s old trademark recordation system, or they must have actually used the trademark in Myanmar for certain goods or services. Trademark owners who do not meet these conditions must wait until the IPD’s “grand opening” to file their new trademarks.

The IPD has given detailed verbal guidance over the past seven months as they have received applications and advised on how to handle various situations; therefore, it is now very clear what information and documents must be attached to applications:

  • Clear specimen of the mark;
  • Translation and transliteration of the mark or parts of the mark that are not in the Myanmar or English languages;
  • Applicant’s full name, address, and company registration number (or passport number/national ID if the applicant is an individual);
  • List of goods or services under the International Nice Classification (identical to those already recorded with the ORD);
  • Claims to the colors of the mark;
  • Disclaimer(s) if applicable;
  • Scanned copy or copies of the previous recordation with the ORD, which is necessary for the registered mark to avoid examination delays;
  • Credible evidence of use with stamped date of the mark for the relevant goods or services in Myanmar if the mark has been already used in the country;
  • If the applicant’s name or address have changed since recordation with the ORD, scanned copies of any credible documents, such as company extracts or certified copies for the change issued by the concerned authority.

The official fees and required forms relating to trademark matters under the new system have yet to be issued.

Considering the current situation in Myanmar, the grand opening of the IPD is likely to be postponed for a while longer. Whenever that does come, it should be preceded by an official announcement of the commencement date from the IPD.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More