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 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related