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​ 

June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,