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

July 3, 2020

Myanmar’s Trademark Law Journey Continues

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Almost a year and a half after Myanmar enacted the Trademark Law 2019 on January 30, 2019, the same question still lingers in the minds of many brand owners and attorneys: “When will the Trademark Law come into force?”

Despite rumors and speculation, the government has yet to fix a date for the law’s implementation.

Ministry Mandate

Since the law’s passage in 2019, the Ministry of Commerce, which is tasked to administer the new IP laws in Myanmar, has organized workshops and briefing sessions across the country to educate interested parties on the changes under the Trademark Law. The new law is expected to completely overhaul the trademark framework in Myanmar by establishing a comprehensive trademark registration and protection system, which will replace the existing recordation practice of the Office of Registration of Deeds (ORD), an agency under the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Irrigation.

In addition to internal capacity building and talent development efforts, the government has also been working to establish administrative bodies and finalize subsidiary regulations to support the new system. Two draft versions of the Trademark Rules have been issued to seek comments from relevant stakeholders and selected IP professionals in the past year, and the new online filing system is said to be ready for implementation.

Potential Impact of COVID-19

Unsurprisingly, the law’s implementation will likely be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic as the government recalibrates its focus to deal with public health concerns. Government offices nationwide are now operating with only 50% of their staff on site, and the parliament, which will have to approve the draft Trademark Rules mentioned above, is currently not in session.

Nevertheless, the government officially formed the IP Central Committee under the Trademark Law on March 6, 2020, with the relevant notification appearing in the Myanmar Gazette on May 8, 2020, marking an important development for the implementation of the law.

Preparing for Implementation

Brand owners are encouraged to commence preparations for refiling their trademarks under the new system, as the Trademark Law 2019 requires existing trademarks recorded with the ORD to be refiled and reregistered to be accorded protection under the new law.

Trademark owners who wish to seek trademark protection in Myanmar should now do the following:

  • Review their trademark portfolio to identify existing protection gaps and to determine the trademarks to be refiled under the new system;
  • Urgently file applications for important marks not yet recorded in Myanmar at the ORD, in order to make use of the special “soft opening” period reserved for existing registrants when the new IP Office begins operations;
  • Locate existing copies of Declarations of Ownership recorded with the ORD, as well as cautionary notices previously published in local newspapers, to support the refiling process;
  • Collate clear and dated evidence of existing use of the trademarks in Myanmar, including advertisements, invoices, catalogues, and office stationery, to enable the utility of the new IP Office’s soft-opening period, particularly if no existing recordation with the ORD is available;
  • Audit current trademark licensing arrangements for Myanmar;
  • Maintain existing trademark registrations at the ORD, and continue publishing trademark notices in local newspapers, in case the need to enforce the rights arises before the new law enters into force.

The ORD is still accepting trademark applications and renewals via Declarations of Ownership, and many brand owners continue to publish cautionary notices of their marks in major newspapers. The ORD is also planning to roll out its first public search facility in the meantime. Local law enforcement agencies also remain supportive in dealing with trademark-related matters. Until there is an official announcement otherwise, it appears that the status quo will remain unchanged in Myanmar.

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