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

May 8, 2023

New Era of IP Protection Begins in Myanmar as Trademark Law Takes Full Effect

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Myanmar’s long-awaited first-to-file trademark registration system came into full effect on April 26, 2023, with the “grand opening” of the country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD). This followed the issuance of the Trademark Rules and other related notifications at the beginning of April, in conjunction with the Trademark Law coming into force.

Full enforcement of this law is a milestone in Myanmar’s long quest to establish a functioning, modern framework for trademarks in particular and for IP in general. The Trademark Law was passed in 2019 as part of suite of laws meant to modernize the country’s treatment of IP rights. Previously, IP rights holders in Myanmar relied on outdated systems based largely on laws from the colonial period under British rule.

For example, brand owners could achieve some measure of protection through establishing use in the country and recording their marks with the Office of Registration of Deeds (ORD). However, these protections were limited and did not provide the same level of security and legal recourse as a comprehensive trademark registration system. Without a proper system in place, businesses were vulnerable to infringement and counterfeiting, which could be detrimental to their reputation and bottom line. The new Trademark Law will provide much-needed protection to brand owners and encourage innovation and investment in Myanmar, bringing the country in line with other Southeast Asian nations that have already implemented modern IP laws and systems, such as Thailand and Vietnam.

Features of the Trademark Law

In addition to the increased protection and streamlined filing procedures, the Trademark Law offers a range of other salient features:

  • Administration: The core government ministry administering the new Trademark Law is the Ministry of Commerce. Four other ministries—the Ministry of Information; the Ministry of Industry; the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation; and the Ministry of Education—are named as having supervisory roles.
  • Requirement to Refile: If trademark owners that previously recorded their marks with the ORD, or did not record their marks but can provide evidence of actual use in Myanmar, want to enjoy rights relating to their marks, they must apply for registration in accordance with the new law.
  • Opposition: Oppositions are allowed for the first 60 days from the date of publication. Oppositions can rely on relative grounds of refusal (e.g., identical or similar to existing marks, unauthorized applications and bad faith).
  • Appeal: Registry appeals can be filed within 60 days of the decision date. Further appeals can be filed with the court within 90 days of receipt of the registry’s decision.
  • Invalidation: Invalidation actions can be lodged against registered marks. A limitation period of five years from the registration date applies, unless the claimant is relying on bad-faith claims.
  • Non-Use Cancellation: If a registered trademark has not been used for three continuous years, it may become vulnerable to a cancellation action.
  • Mediation: The availability of mediation procedures remains unclear. However, if one or more parties apply to register identical or similar marks on the same day, or for the same priority date, the registration officer will instruct all applicants to negotiate among themselves in order to determine the name of the applicant for the mark and to resubmit within a specified period.
  • Geographical Identifications: Geographical identification rights can be applied for by (i) persons who produce goods from natural products or resources; (ii) producers of agricultural products; (iii) producers of handicraft or industrial products; and (iv) responsible persons from government departments and organizations representing the persons described in the previous three categories. The term of protection will be extended provided the special characteristics, qualities or reputation for which the GI has been allowed protection continue to exist.
  • Licenses: Trademark licenses must be recorded.
  • Trade Names: Trade name protection is available either as a part of a trademark or separately and will be protected with or without registration. There is no mandatory requirement for registration.
  • Infringement: Civil and criminal actions are available to address infringement. Criminal penalties include up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to MMK 10 million (approximately USD 4,740).

Next Steps

The grand opening means that marks filed during the IPD’s “soft opening” period, and for which all fees have been fully paid, will be officially accorded the first filing date on the date of the IPD’s grand opening. This marks a significant change under the Trademark Law’s new first-to-file system, and mark owners who submitted marks during the soft opening period need to pay the official filing fees before April 26 to secure the earliest possible filing date (i.e., April 26, 2023). Mark owners also need to submit a notarized Appointment of Representative form—a newly introduced form that is different from a power of attorney—to the IPD to enable their trademark representative in Myanmar to carry out this step.

With the trademark system coming into full effect with the IPD’s grand opening, mark owners will be able to file registration applications for new marks, which has not been permitted during the soft opening period. To expedite this process, mark owners should start preparing all necessary documents for filing their new trademark applications.

This is a significant development for Myanmar, as the country has previously lacked a robust system of IP protection. The new Trademark Law is a strong affirmation of Myanmar’s commitment to creating a modern, market-oriented economy that can attract foreign investment and promote economic growth.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
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
Read More
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,
Read More