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​ 

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
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More