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 Previously, IP rights holders in Myanmar relied on outdated systems based largely on laws from the colonial period under British rule.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 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More