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 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
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More
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