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

September 25, 2019

Myanmar’s New Trademark Law: What Foreign Business Owners Need to Know

The Myanmar Trademark Law 2019 was finally enacted on January 30, 2019. This is an important step in the government’s efforts to attract foreign investment into Myanmar, as the new Trademark Law establishes a framework for a comprehensive trademark registration and protection system to both foreign and domestic trademark owners. In this article, we will address some of the common questions raised by foreign business owners in Myanmar.

What are trademarks?

Under the new Myanmar Trademark Law 2019, trademarks are defined as any visually perceptible sign that distinguishes the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. This includes an individual’s personal name, letters, numerals, graphical representations, and combinations of colors. Nevertheless, it is important to note that not all trademarks are registrable. For example, an application to register trademarks that are deemed to lack distinctiveness, or are directly descriptive of goods or services, will be refused. An application may also be rejected if the trademark is applied for in bad faith, or is identical or confusingly similar to a third party’s trademark.

I have already registered my trademarks in my home country. Why do I need to file new applications in Myanmar?

Trademark rights are territorial in nature. This means that the ownership of a registered trademark in another country will not be sufficient for you to establish grounds for trademark infringement, if your trademark is used by an unauthorized third party in Myanmar. If you are using (or if you are planning to use) your trademark in Myanmar, it is highly recommended for trademark protection to be sought here. You may also wish to consult your trademark agent on the possibility of claiming the priority date of your foreign trademark applications in Myanmar.

I have already recorded my trademarks in Myanmar using statutory declarations in the past, and I have also published trademark notices in the Myanmar newspapers for many years. How does this new law affect me?

In accordance with the Myanmar Trademark Law 2019, trademark owners who have previously recorded their trademarks with the Office of Registration of Deeds are required to apply for registration under the new law in order to enjoy statutory trademark rights. Proof of existing registrations under the old framework can be submitted at the time of application. In other words, upon the entry into force of the new law, existing trademark declarations and trademark notices will no longer be sufficient to demonstrate ownership of trademarks in Myanmar.

I am using the trademark under a license. Can I file an application for the trademark, too?

This will depend on the contractual arrangement between you and your trademark licensor. Nonetheless, the new Myanmar Trademark Law 2019 requires all trademark licenses to be recorded with the Trademark Office. If you are a trademark owner, it is important to note that all licenses granted should be recorded, as unrecorded trademark licenses will be deemed void under the law.

How do I file a trademark application under the new system?

Although the Myanmar Trademark Law 2019 has been officially approved and signed, the effective date has yet to be announced. The government is currently working on the establishment of administrative bodies and the drafting of implementing regulations to support the new system, aiming for completion by the end of the year. Meanwhile, the Myanmar Trademark Law 2019 requires the following for a trademark application: 

  • The application request in the form designated by the Trademark Office;
  • The name and address of the applicant for registration (or the representative’s name and address if submitted by a representative);
  • A clear and complete representation of the trademark to be applied for; and
  • A description of goods and/or services requested for registration in accordance with the stipulated international trademark classification. (This is expected to be the Nice International Classification, but is not yet finalized.)

In addition, the following should be provided where applicable:

  • The registration number, type, and country of origin of the entity, if the applicant is applying on behalf of a legal entity;
  • Documents supporting, describing, and requesting the claim of priority right, if the applicant requests such right;
  • Documents supporting, describing, and requesting exhibition priority right, if the applicant requests such right;
  • A certificate of registration (Declaration of Ownership), if the trademark has been recorded at the Myanmar Office of Registration of Deeds; and
  • Other requirements that may be set from time to time by the Trademark Office.

I have a limited budget. Can I file applications by myself?

While this is not prohibited under the Myanmar Trademark Law 2019, it is expected that foreign applicants will have to appoint a local representative to file applications. This is a common practice in many jurisdictions, and will be further clarified through implementing regulations to be issued in

due course. Assuming such rules are adopted, it will be necessary to seek professional assistance in submitting an application—which actually increases the likelihood of application approval anyway. An experienced trademark practitioner will be able to assist in building and maintaining your portfolio. This may include conducting pre-filing clearance checks, ensuring that the scope of goods and services applied for is appropriate so as to reduce the likelihood for an invalidation action based on non-use, avoiding or arguing against the imposition of trademark disclaimers, the monitoring of third-party trademarks, the maintenance of deadlines, and more. A customized and well-designed trademark prosecution strategy will reduce or anticipate the possibility of costly objections, rejections, and third party oppositions—and is a more cost-effective option for trademark owners in the long run.

Since the law is not yet effective, what should I do in the meantime?

Pending the effective date of the new Myanmar Trademark Law 2019, you should begin collating all evidence of existing use of your trademark, including past trademark notices, advertisements, invoices, catalogues, office stationery, and other clear evidence of use of your trademark in Myanmar. It is important to ensure that all such materials are dated. For trademark owners whose existing marks are subject to licensing arrangements in Myanmar, these too should be audited and checked for up-to-date and accurate depictions of the relationship with licensees, to avoid any ambiguities when evidencing use.

Meanwhile, it is recommended that you continue maintaining your trademark registrations under the current recordal system, especially if the trademark in question has not been used in the course of trade in Myanmar. Similarly, trademark owners can continue to publish trademark notices in local newspapers.

The intellectual property rights protection framework in Myanmar is undergoing an overhaul, due to the recent enactment of the Myanmar Trademark Law 2019, alongside three other pieces of legislation—the Patents Law, the Industrial Designs Law, and the Copyright Law. Coming at a time when Myanmar’s government is in the process of opening the country to foreign investment and greater involvement from overseas businesses, this raft of legislation is an indicator of the government’s intention to create a fair, modernized system that will be welcoming to intellectual property owners. Investors and entrepreneurs should take note of these developments, which collectively are a positive sign of where the business environment in Myanmar may be headed.

For more information on protecting intellectual property in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins’ Yangon office at [email protected].

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes