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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation