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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More