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​ 

April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
March 31, 2026
Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation. The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities. Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability. However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security. New Model for Curriculum Development The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime,
March 31, 2026
Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD) has issued a regulation imposing additional requirements for amending a company’s directors and signatory power to designate a foreign national as an authorized signatory of the company. This measure, effective April 1, 2026, has been introduced in response to the widespread use of Thai nationals as nominees to conduct business on behalf of foreigners, a practice considered to have an adverse impact on the country’s economic stability and security. The new measures are particularly concerned with changes to the authorized signatory structure of companies that originally had only Thai directors authorized to sign for and bind the company. Under the new rules, any amendment that results in a foreign national becoming an authorized signatory—whether solely or jointly—for such a company will be subject to additional verification. Directors signing an application to register such an amendment to the company’s authorized signatory structure are now also required to provide a statement confirming that all shareholders of the company have made genuine contributions and no Thai national has assisted with, supported, or participated in business activities in a nominee capacity. Implications Companies intending to appoint foreign directors as authorized signatories should be aware of the increased regulatory requirements and assessments. Additional documentation and confirmations may be required as part of the registration process.