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

February 21, 2018

Overview of the Myanmar Trademark Bill 2017

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

After much anticipation, the latest Myanmar Trademark Bill (the “Bill”) was published in the third quarter of 2017, alongside the Patents Bill, Copyright Bill, and the Industrial Designs Bill. The publication of the four bills marked the first development in the intellectual property sphere initiated by the National League of Democracy government since it entered into office in April 2016. In January 2018, the Union Minister for Education, Dr. Myo Thein Gyi, submitted the Bill to the Parliament for the Upper House’s consideration. 

Like previously published versions of the Bill, this latest version introduces a first-to-file trademark system in Myanmar, where a first-to-use system is currently adopted. A trademark office and specialized intellectual property courts, to hear intellectual property disputes, will also be established under the new trademark framework. This article will set out the main feature of the Trademark Bill.

Re-registration of Existing Trademarks

Existing trademark owners who have recorded their trademark rights at the Office of Registration of Deeds will be required to file new applications to enjoy trademark protection under the new trademark framework. The Bill provides that trademark owners who have existing declarations of ownership for their trademarks in Myanmar must provide copies of them when applying for trademark registration, but the Bill is silent on the weight these documents would carry in the examination of applications. Under the new framework proposed in the Bill, applications can be filed in English or Myanmar languages, and each registered trademark will be valid for an initial term of 10 years, renewable for additional terms of 10 years each.

Recognition of Priority Rights

Although Myanmar is not yet a member of the Paris Convention, the Bill contains provisions allowing trademark owners who have filed their trademarks in a Paris Convention or World Trade Organization member state to claim priority rights when filing trademarks in Myanmar within six months from the date of their first application in a foreign member state. The priority right also extends to exhibition priority.

Recognition of Well-Known Marks

The Bill explicitly recognizes the concept of well-known marks, providing a definition of well-known marks and the protection offered to them. Nonetheless, the current Bill does not contain provisions addressing how a mark would be declared as a well-known mark. This is expected to be clarified in rules and regulations issued after the Bill is enacted into law.

Mandatory Registration of Trademark Licenses

The recordal of trademark licenses is compulsory under the Bill. A certified true copy of the trademark license must be submitted to the trademark office, and licenses that are not recorded with the trademark office will be deemed ineffective in Myanmar.

Introduction of Substantive and Procedural Examination Processes

Notably, the Bill streamlines the trademark prosecution practice in Myanmar, bringing it in line with those of other jurisdictions, by introducing substantive and procedural examination processes. Trademark applications will be subject to substantive examination against both absolute and relative criteria for refusal, as well as procedural checks, before they proceed to registration. For instance, trademarks that lack distinctiveness, that are generic through use of common vocabulary, or that adversely affect public order, morality, faith, or the dignity and cherished culture of Myanmar, are deemed as non-registrable marks under the Bill.

Availability of Opposition and Cancellation Actions

Under the Bill, aggrieved parties can also file opposition and cancellation actions against trademark applications and registrations by other third parties. This is in contrast with the existing framework, under which trademarks can only be removed from the register by filing a trademark cancellation action in court.

Registration of Geographical Indications

Geographical indications can also be registered under the Bill, and are accorded similar rights to trademarks. Each registered geographical indication is protected for an initial period of 10 years and is renewable for a term of 10 years at a time. The Bill does not distinguish the levels of protection for wines and spirits from those of other products, as per the obligations under the TRIPS agreement.

Protection of Trade Names

The Bill extends protection to unregistered trade names and offers protection against unauthorized use of a mark that is identical or similar to a trade name in a manner which may mislead members of the public.

New Border Control Measures

Rights holders can also apply to the Myanmar Customs Department for a suspension order to prevent the entry of counterfeit goods into Myanmar. Each order, if granted, is valid for a period of six months. Items brought into Myanmar for personal use by the traveler, items that are not for commercial purposes, or items imported in small quantities are exempted from such suspension orders. The Bill is silent on what constitutes “small quantities” and is also silent on the trademark recordal practice currently administered by the customs authorities in Myanmar.

Availability of Civil and Criminal Remedies

Both civil and criminal remedies for trademark infringement are available under the Bill. Civil relief available to aggrieved trademark owners includes temporary measures, such as ex parte orders, and the courts are empowered to order infringers to pay damages, court fees, and attorney fees. The Bill also stipulates criminal penalties in the form of imprisonment, fines, and the destruction of infringing goods.

Trademark owners are eagerly anticipating the enactment of the Bill into a law, as foreign investments continue to pour into Myanmar pursuant to the enactment of the new Myanmar Investment Law 2016 and Myanmar Companies Law 2017. While there are references to the protection of intellectual property rights in various statutes, it is time for Myanmar to introduce its very first trademark law to adequately address trademark protection needs and the concerns of foreign and local businesses alike.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More