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​ 

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