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 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More