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​ 

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