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

June 5, 2019

Practical Implications of Myanmar’s New Trademark Law

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On January 30, 2019, Myanmar’s long-awaited Trademark Law was signed into law, effectively establishing the framework for a comprehensive trademark registration system open to both foreign and domestic trademark owners. This highly anticipated move by the government marks an essential step in its efforts to increase Myanmar’s attractiveness as a destination for foreign investment.   

Although the law has been officially approved and signed, the effective date has yet to be announced. Before that can happen, the government must first set up the necessary administrative bodies and prepare enabling legislation to support the new system. Once all of the pieces are in place, the application gates will open and the new system will come into effect. At that time, any trademark owners that have recorded their rights under the previous system will have to file new applications to ensure that their marks continue to be protected under the new law. Until further notice, new recordal applications, renewals of existing recordals and all other trademark declarations will still be accepted under the old system.   

A brief overview of the salient features of the new Trademark Law, which is now the principal piece of legislation governing the protection of trademarks in Myanmar, is outlined below.

Administrating Ministry    

The core government ministry administrating 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 Re-file    

Section 93(a) of the Trademark Law states that if trademark owners that have previously recorded their marks with the Office of Registration of Deeds (ORD) or have not recorded 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 (eg, identical or similar to existing marks, unauthorised applications and bad faith).

Appeals

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 Actions

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 Actions

If a registered trademark has not been used for three continuous years, it may become vulnerable to a cancellation action.

Mediation Procedure    

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:

  • persons who produce goods from natural products or resources;
  • producers of agricultural products;
  • producers of handicraft or industrial products; and
  • responsible persons from  government departments and organizations representing the persons described in the previous three categories.

The term of protection will be extended provided that the special characteristics, qualities or reputation for which the mark has been allowed protection continue to exist.   

Licenses    

Trademark licenses must be recorded.

Trade Name   

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 (for repeat offenders) and a fine of up to MMK10 million (approximately USD6,500) (also for repeat offenders).

Filing Procedure   

The filing process will be more streamlined under the new Trademark Law than under the previous system and will be in line with international trademark registration standards, making it easier for both local and international IP owners to submit applications and obtain trademark protection. The general filing procedure is laid out in Figure 1.

Next Steps for Trademark Owners   

Although the procedure and administrative bodies for the new system are not yet in place, the new law lays out the documents and information required for registration. In advance of the law becoming effective, trademark owners can begin to compile and prepare:

  • requests for registration;
  • the name and address of the applicants for registration (or the representative’s name and address, if submitted by a representative);
  • clear and complete representations of the applied-for marks; and
  • the names and types of goods and services requested for registration in accordance with international trademark classifications.

In addition to these required documents, the following information and documents should be provided, where applicable:

  • the registration number, type, and country of origin of the entity, if the applicant is applying on behalf of a legal entity;
  • documents supporting, describing, and requesting the claim of priority right, if the applicant requests such a right;
  • documents supporting, describing, and requesting exhibition priority right, if the applicant requests such a right;
  • a certificate of registration (declaration of ownership), if the applied-for mark is recorded at the ORD; and
  • other requirements that may be set by a directorate that will be established to oversee trademark registration.

The documentary evidence to support new applications includes proof of existing recordals with the ORD. Although it is not yet clear what weight these will have during the trademark examination process, trademark owners should audit their portfolios to ensure that their rights are recorded and up to date, in order to secure maximum leverage under the new system.    

Similarly, the Trademark Law refers to providing evidence of use in order to support a trademark application. Therefore, trademark owners should begin to collate all evidence of existing use, including cautionary notices (which can still be published), advertisements, and office stationery.   

For rights holders whose existing marks are subject to licensing arrangements in Myanmar, these agreements should also be audited and checked for up-to-date and accurate depictions of the relationship with franchisees and licensees, in order to avoid any ambiguities when evidencing use.

Conclusion   

Prior to the announcement of the new Trademark Law, revised IP legislation in Myanmar had been pending for a number of years. Although the announcement of the new legislation provides comfort and ease of mind to brand owners, there is still a long way to go before the law can come into effect. At present, the Ministry of Commerce is planning the required framework in order to support implementation of the law. Among other things, the framework includes the creation of an IP office at which filings and operational procedures will be centralized. Although the location of the office has yet to be determined, current plans suggest that it could be established between the start of the new fiscal year (October 2019) and the upcoming 2020 general election.   

The Trademark Law is the first of a handful of new IP laws that will form the basis of Myanmar’s reformed intellectual property system. An Industrial Design Law was also passed on January 30, 2019, followed by a new Patent Law signed into legislation on March 11, and a new Copyright Law on May 24, substantially expanding the rights of IP owners in the jurisdiction. These laws will help to build a robust IP landscape in Myanmar, which will prove to be instrumental in attracting higher numbers of foreign investors.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
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