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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More