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​ 

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