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​ 

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
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More