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

November 23, 2015

Tapping into Myanmar’s Franchising Potential

Informed Counsel

Franchising has become very popular among international franchisors in the Greater Mekong Subregion. In particular, franchising in Myanmar’s food and beverage sector has experienced tremendous growth, as the country’s middle class continues to expand and tourists maintain a steady influx into the region.

In Myanmar, global franchise companies such as KFC, Yakun Coffee & Toast, Swensen’s, Pizza Company, BBQ Chicken, and Lotteria, among many others, are already a common sight. Many of these global chains have even customized their menus and products to adapt to local preferences.

In this article, we examine the wealth of opportunities available by using the franchise model as a mode of business in Myanmar, as well as issues relating to trade, intellectual property, and emerging markets.

Investment Environment

The European Union and the United States continue to lift their sanctions on Myanmar, which has allowed more businesses to enter the Burmese market. In Myanmar, commercial relationships such as franchising, joint ventures, wholly foreign-owned enterprises, and distribution are primarily governed by the Foreign Investment Law, Foreign Investment Rules, Myanmar Companies Act, Contracts Act, and a range of notifications issued by different ministries.

Investment in the retail and food and beverage sectors can be made through a joint venture with local Myanmar corporate entities. There are no specific restrictions on share equity in joint ventures, and the Myanmar Investment Commission determines the ratio of share equity on a case-by-case basis.

The import, export, and sale of goods are almost exclusively reserved for local Myanmar citizens or 100 percent locally-owned Myanmar companies. Such trading may be afforded to large foreign businesses operating in special economic zones under the Special Economic Zones Law.

However, if a franchise outlet in Myanmar is owned by a foreign-owned subsidiary, it can engage in trading, including the import and sale of franchise products through the outlet, with the assistance of a local company or an individual. Franchising can therefore help overcome the current restrictions on foreigners operating in the Burmese market.

Competition

Exclusivity clauses are common to franchise relationships. In Section 27 of Myanmar’s Contracts Act, however, it states that “every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, is to that extent void.” This would appear to prohibit the inclusion of an exclusivity clause in a franchise relationship.

In fact, the restriction imposed by Section 27 is not absolute, provided that the exclusivity clause is carefully worded to restrict such negative covenants to a specific type of business, term, and geographical area.

Although Myanmar’s Competition Law was passed in February this year, it has not been fully implemented, as the bylaws have not yet been issued. However, as the country’s economic climate is still maturing, franchising businesses are unlikely to raise any competition issues.

Advertising restrictions, such as comparative advertising of businesses with similar goods and services, dissemination of incorrect information, and deceptive advertising about a given product, are expressly prohibited under the Competition Law.

Intellectual Property Protection

There is no legal or regulatory framework for intellectual property (IP) in Myanmar, but the country’s IP laws are currently being drafted. There are several provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure that deal with trademark infringement, such as passing off, which is a false representation that induces a person to believe that the goods and services of an owner are those of another.

In the absence of IP laws, it is important for brand owners to generate as much public awareness of their IP as possible. Filing and registering a declaration of ownership with the Registry of Deeds and Assurances is highly recommended, followed by publishing a cautionary notice to reserve any IP rights and to serve as evidence of such rights if the need arises. This includes filing trademark license agreements with the Registry, and if the Trademark Law is enacted, it would become compulsory to register trademark license agreements as well.

Pitfalls

While there is great optimism in Myanmar, it is important to be mindful of the challenges in developing jurisdictions. For example, the Arbitration Law has not yet been enacted, which has delayed Myanmar’s ratification of its obligations under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

Resolution of disputes through Myanmar’s court system is highly protracted and generally avoided by the business community as the legal system has redundant, archaic laws that are ill-suited to modern business relationships.

Conclusion

The opportunities in Myanmar are endless, and the country’s outlook is very positive. Consumer spending is increasing as average incomes continue to rise, Myanmar’s developing telecommunications infrastructure has resulted in greater brand recognition among the populous, and the government has shown a strong commitment toward implementing economic and political reforms. Franchising will play a crucial role in Myanmar’s continued development, as it generates jobs, enhances skill development, and grows small and medium-sized businesses. It has therefore been no surprise that international franchisors have scrambled to the country for a piece of the pie.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear