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

January 22, 2014

Trademarks in Myanmar: An Emerging IP Regime

Subscribe to Updates
T-AB: Thai-American Business, Journal of the American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand

Among its many legal reforms now underway, Myanmar is beginning to develop new systems for the protection of intellectual property rights. Historically, there have not been any specific IP laws in Myanmar. Instead, IP owners have needed to rely on other systems of registration in order to protect their rights. But in a demonstration of its commitment to provide full protection for IP rights, the country is now drafting and reviewing its first Trademark Law.

Existing Legal Regime – Registration Act

Despite the absence of a law governing trademarks, many brand owners have already taken steps to protect their trademark rights under Myanmar’s existing system by relying on the current Registration Act and filing their marks with the Office of the Registration of Deeds. This interim system of protection allows an IP owner to protect a trademark by filing an application to record a Declaration of Ownership. When the Declaration of Ownership has been recorded, the trademark will be protected for three years from the registration date.

In order to file a Declaration of Ownership of a mark with the Office of the Registration of Deeds of Myanmar, the following documents are required:

  1. Full name, address, and nationality of the applicant;
  2. A Power of Attorney, which has been duly certified by a Notary Public and legalized by the Embassy of Myanmar;
  3. A simply signed Declaration of Ownership;
  4. A specimen of the mark; and
  5. A list of goods according to the International Classification (a multiple-class application is allowed).

There is no substantive examination for the recordation, and so the recordation system allows more than one owner to record the ownership of the same mark. Following the recordation of the Declaration of Ownership, it is recommended that a Cautionary Notice of the registered mark be published in a local English newspaper or in a periodical, to remind the public of the mark’s ownership and warn against possible passing off or infringement. Depending on the status of the transition to the new Trademark Law, brand owners can also consider renewing their registration and republishing their Cautionary notice every three years.

Draft Trademark Law

To replace this existing procedure, Myanmar’s Trademark Law is now being drafted and reviewed, and it is due to take effect in the first quarter of 2014, making it likely to be the first IP law established in the country. The Myanmar Intellectual Property Office (MIPO) will be set up as the responsible government body, and it will accept and register applications for trademark registration.

The tenth draft of the Trademark Law, which remains subject to change as it moves through the legislative process, is a significant piece of legislation that introduces key aspects of trademark protection for brand owners, which includes the following:

Scope. Protection is available for trademarks, service marks, collective marks, certification marks, and series of marks.

Definition. The definition of “mark” covers perceptible signs including sounds, smells, and touch, or any visible signs including pictures, names, domain names, signatures, letters, words, numerals, brands, labels, configurations, trade dress, packaging, colors, or combinations of colors.

Multiple classes. Multiple-class applications are allowed.

First to file. A first-to-file system will be implemented—the person who files the earliest application will enjoy the right to register the mark.

Priority. To claim the priority right of the date to file the first application for registration of a mark in any foreign member state conventions, treaties, or agreements, or of international organizations or regional organizations of which Myanmar is a member, an application for trademark registration must be filed within six months of the first filing date.

Registrability. The mark will not be registrable if it is:

  • Lacking distinctiveness
  • Similar or identical to others’ registered marks or well-known registered marks;
  • Misleading the public or trade circles;
  • Using the name of plant varieties protected in Myanmar;
  • Infringing others’ IP rights;
  • Filed in bad faith; and
  • In conflict with other restrictions as prescribed by the law. 

Opposition. Opposition can be lodged against trademark applications during the publication period. The deadline to file an opposition is 30 days from the date of the application if the opposer resides inside Myanmar and 60 days if the opposer resides outside Myanmar.

Appeal. Any aggrieved person wishing to make an appeal against the Registrar’s decision is entitled to file an appeal with the Director General of MIPO, with further appeals being made with the responsible ministry or the Supreme Court.

Term. The term of registration for marks is ten years from the filing date of the application for registration, and the protection is renewable every ten years. A grace period of six months from the expiry date can be requested, but this carries with it late fees. Applications for renewal of a trademark registration must be filed within six months prior to the expiry date.

Exclusive rights. The owner of a registered mark shall have the exclusive right, first, to prohibit and prevent a third party from using identical or similar marks for the same or similar goods or services in the course of trade where confusion may arise in the public. In case of the use of an identical symbol or sign for the same goods or services, confusion shall be presumed. Second, a trademark owner has the right to file litigation, in criminal and/or civil actions, against an alleged infringer.

Good faith. The owner of a registered mark shall not be entitled to prohibit a third party from using the mark in good faith for industrial or commercial purposes in the following ways:

  • The owner’s name or address;
  • Indications concerning kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time of production, or other characteristics of goods or services;
  • Indications in respect of the intended;
  • Purpose of accessories or spare parts; and
  • The Ministry of Health may take measures to limit the use of marks for the purpose of facilitating the prescription of and the access to generic pharmaceutical products and medical devices, or for the purpose of discouraging the public consumption of goods that are deemed prejudicial to health, provided such measures do not unreasonably cause a detriment to the capability of the marks in question to distinguish goods of one undertaking from those of another undertaking.

Licensing. Trademark license agreements must be recorded with the MIPO. After the Registrar scrutinizes the application for the recordal of license agreement, the application will be recorded and published.

Cancellation. Grounds for full or partial cancellation of a trademark registration are:

  • The registered mark falls under any ground of unregistrable mark as described in the law;
  • The owner of the registered mark is not entitled to the registration; and
  • The registration has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of any prescribed point.

Non-use. Non-use cancellation is available. The Registrar may cancel the registration of a mark if the trademark owner fails to use the mark for three consecutive years, commencing from the date of registration, without any sufficient justification.

Shifting Protection from the Registration Act to the Trademark Law

What will happen to trademarks registered under the Registration Act after the new law comes into effect? Any trademarks registered before the new Trademark Law comes into force—regardless of whether or not a new application is filed under the new Trademark Law—will continue to receive protection for three years from the effective date of the new law.

To continue the protection of a mark registered under the Registration Act, the trademark owner must file an application to register the mark with the MIPO (if the MIPO has already been established) within three years after the effective date of the new Trademark Law. If a new application to register the mark is not filed under the new Trademark Law within three years from its effective date, the protection of the mark under the Registration Act will end.

Preliminary examination on absolute grounds will be conducted by the Registrar. If the mark is not refused on absolute grounds, a Receipt of Acknowledgement (the Receipt) will be issued. The Registrar will then further examine whether or not the Receipt has been correctly issued in accordance with the new Trademark Law. If it meets the required criteria, the Certificate of Registered Mark will be issued. If it does not, the Receipt will be cancelled.

Looking Ahead

Myanmar has begun to pave the way toward establishing a concrete system of protecting intellectual property rights. After the Trademark Law is implemented, foreign investors in Myanmar will have greater reassurance that their brands will receive trademark protection that meets international standards.

As a best practice, however, trademark owners should not wait to register their marks until after the new law has come into effect. Those who have not already done so should immediately seek protection for their marks under the Registration Act by way of a recordation of Declaration of Ownership. By establishing their rights under the current system, trademark owners can strengthen their position in Myanmar and ensure a smooth, uninterrupted transition into the new system, once the Trademark Law comes into effect.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More