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

July 1, 2015

Protection for Well-Known Trademarks in Myanmar

Subscribe to Updates
World Trademark Review

Myanmar still has no Trademark Act—a law was expected to come into effect in 2013, but was then postponed with as yet no firm date as to when it will be enacted. Despite this, many rights holders have already taken steps to protect their trademarks under Myanmar’s existing system by recording their marks with the Office of the Registry of Deeds and Assurances (RDA) under the Registration Act.

In fact, over half of the companies on Interbrand’s Top 20 Best Global Brands 2014—including Google, Apple, Coca-Cola, Samsung, Toyota, Intel, Hewlett Packard, and Honda—have registered their marks under the current system. This article discusses the current practice of securing trademark protection in Myanmar, as well as the changes proposed by the new Trademark Act.

Current System

Myanmar’s current interim system of protection allows a rights holder to protect a trademark by filing an application to record a declaration of ownership. Once this is recorded, the corresponding mark will be protected for three years from the registration date. Following the recordation of the declaration of ownership, a cautionary notice should be published in a local newspaper or periodical, to notify the public of the mark’s ownership and to warn against passing off or infringement.

Protection for Well-Known Marks

A rights holder must invest a significant amount of time and money creating an image, promoting and advertising it, building trust, and then demonstrating the quality of its products before the public is likely to recognize the mark as well known. However, under the current system, identical or similar trademarks can be registered concurrently by more than one party, as there is no trademark law and thus no official trademark search facility or database, no examination process for similar trademarks, and no opposition or cancellation processes against trademark applications prior to their registration.

Rights holders—particularly holders of well-known marks—must preserve and protect their trademark rights using Myanmar’s current practice and laws. If they do not, they risk their marks being taken over and distributed by an infringer or another party without their authorization, or a confusingly similar mark being applied to poor-quality goods or services, resulting in reputational damage.

As mentioned above, rights holders—particularly owners of well-known marks—can obtain protection for their trademarks by recording a declaration of ownership and publishing a cautionary notice in a local newspaper or periodical. Further, if the mark is subsequently infringed, the rights holder can launch a civil action for trademark infringement under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, to obtain a permanent injunction. In addition, it may claim damages caused by such infringement. In civil prosecutions, demonstrating actual commercial use of a mark in Myanmar is crucial, in order to prove which party has the better rights over a mark—Myanmar courts place significant weight on use when determining ownership of a mark. The relevant date in such cases is the registration date of the declaration of ownership and the date on which the mark was first used in Myanmar.

Global Brands Come Knocking

Apple is the top-ranked brand in the Best Global Brands 2014 rankings and it already has an official authorized dealer and reseller of Apple laptops, desktop computers, and iPhones in Myanmar, which is responsible for expanding the tech giant’s business and addressing customer requirements. Coca-Cola has also generated a lasting positive impact in Myanmar by manufacturing, distributing, selling, and hiring through its local business there. Samsung has launched an electronic equipment business, mobile phone reseller and shop in the country; while other leading global brands—such as Mercedes Benz, BMW, and Toyota—have all opened showrooms with local partners in Myanmar.

Under the current system, it is possible for one or more parties to register identical or similar trademarks in trademark in Myanmar concurrently, as previously mentioned. This is the case even for well-known marks. Therefore, identical trademarks should be recorded and a cautionary notice published to show that they are protected in Myanmar.

Published Cautionary Notices Showing Registered Marks

Recently, a number of local shops have been using names and well-known marks as their shop or business names. This may be because the well-known (often foreign) mark is unknown to them. Additionally, under the current system, they may be within their rights to use the well-known marks, provided that they have recorded a declaration of ownership with the RDA. In such cases rights holders can do nothing to prevent such infringement, unless they have already taken steps to protect their marks in line with the current practice.

A legitimate rights holder seeking legal recourse against an alleged infringer which has acted in bad faith may:

  • Send a cease and desist letter ordering that the infringement stop;
  • Request a cancellation action against the infringed registered trademark; or
  • Request a temporary injunction from the courts and initiate a lawsuit.

The rights holder must demonstrate actual use of the mark to prove that it is the legitimate owner and has a stronger right to the mark in Myanmar. Such use might include the sale and distribution of products or services bearing the mark, either on its own or via a distributor. However, this may prove difficult, since the legitimate rights holder may be unable to provide evidence claiming a stronger right than the alleged infringer for products that are unrelated to its business.

Further, foreigners and foreign companies are not allowed to operate trading and retailing businesses in Myanmar. For this reason, rights holders face limitations on their capacity to sell and distribute products, because they are required to find a local distributor or business partner to trade, sell, or import their products in Myanmar.

Draft Trademark Act

As mentioned earlier, the new Trademark Act was expected to come into effect in 2014. It is now hoped that the new Trademark Act will come into effect later this year, so that the mechanisms of trademark protection and solutions to a number of problems that have arisen out of the current practice will be provided for. Such issues include:

  • How to authenticate a trademark right under the new Trademark Act, which has arisen from the current practice of recording declarations of trademark registration;
  • How examinations will be conducted to identify the rights between two or more trademark owners that have recorded the same trademark with the RDA;
  • Remedies for foreign rights holders trying to retrieve their IP rights from a domestic user which obtained a senior right under the current practice; and
  • Supporting evidence for legitimate rights holders in proving their stronger right over a disputed mark. This applies not only to actual use of a disputed Myanmar, but also to use of the mark in other countries, which should be considered in both stronger right and unfair competition disputes.

Since Myanmar opened its doors to the international community in 2011, many companies have looked to expand their business into the country. With new and exciting ventures being set up in Myanmar, there is tremendous potential and a need for a robust IP regime. As many leading global companies continue to invest and expand their businesses in Myanmar, the draft Trademark Act is expected to be the first IP law to be implemented in the country. While it has been debated extensively and has undergone several significant amendments, after 10 years it still has not been passed.

It is hoped that the new Trademark Act will be implemented this year to protect long-term business investments in Myanmar. It is vital that IP protection be considered not only at the start of a business, but over its entire lifecycle. Currently, rights holders face problems when it comes to enforcing their IP rights—for example, in cases of distributorship. It is not uncommon for disputes to arise between rights holders and local distributors after the foreign rights holder has successfully built its brand in Myanmar. The local distributor then creates its own brand, imitating the main features of the original, and registers the new imitating brand, which would certainly affect a legitimate rights holder’s business in Myanmar. These are serious considerations for prospective businesses looking to enter the Myanmar market, but wanting to protect their valuable intellectual property.

Further Progress

While waiting for the new Trademark Act to come into effect, it is expected that a Myanmar Department of Intellectual Property will be established—probably in Nay Pyi Taw—as well as offices where IP applications can be submitted, most likely in Yangon, Mandalay, and in other large cities. Regulations, announcements, and publications are likely to be drafted in accordance with the Trademark Act in order to implement a trademark examination system, procedures, and formal documenting requirements. In addition, careful attention will need to be paid to the issue of transitioning marks that have already been registered with the RDA to the new registration system under the Trademark Act.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
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