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 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation