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

February 3, 2016

Update on Myanmar’s IP Laws

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Myanmar’s general election, which took place on November 8, was the first nationwide vote since the military junta’s dissolution in 2011. It was also the first poll contested by opposition party the National League for Democracy (NLD) in 25 years. Rapid economic reforms since 2011 have resulted in enormous growth opportunities. With the NLD winning a sweeping majority in both houses of parliament, the country now enters a transitional phase with the quasi-civilian government gradually transferring power to the NLD.

It is unclear how the NLD’s win will shape Myanmar’s economic agenda, but Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the country has seen steady growth, providing some measure of stability and predictability. Aung San Suu Kyi has taken steps to ensure the handover is smooth, and she has taken a cooperative approach with the military administration. Investors and IP owners are certainly being cautious, however, allowing themselves time to assess and observe the political reform process.

In July, the Thein Sein government issued draft laws for industrial designs, patents, trademarks, and copyright, inviting public opinion and consultations. These IP laws will have a significant impact on business, and they should make Myanmar a more attractive country for investment. This is because IP owners will be better able to protect and preserve their IP rights in the country.

Draft Industrial Design Law

According to the draft law, to be eligible for protection, industrial designs must be original and genuine and not published, used, displayed, or declared to the public abroad or domestically before making an application. The term of a registered industrial design is five years from the application date, and it can be renewed for two additional terms of five years each. The duration of a registered industrial design is 15 years.

Importantly, this law empowers the Union Supreme Court to establish an IP office and IP courts to hear IP cases. In addition, it will repeal The Burma Patents and Designs (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1946.

Draft Patent Law

Chapter 5 of the draft patent law holds that a patent must be genuine, have an inventive step, and be utilized in industry. The term of a patent is 20 years from the date of the patent application, and annuity fees are to be paid to the registrar for the prescribed periods to maintain the patent registration. Any court proceedings relating to patents will follow the provisions that are enacted for IP courts under the law on industrial designs.

Draft Trademark Law

The term of a registered trademark is ten years from the filing date, and it can be renewed for additional ten-year terms. Furthermore, both domestic and foreign owners of marks can apply under this law. Again, court proceedings will be under the jurisdiction of the IP courts.

Importantly, trademark owners who have registered a declaration of trademark ownership with the Office of the Registry of Deeds and Assurances under the Registration Act before this law comes into force must apply for a new registration under the new law, and there will be no transitional period. International trademark owners have a priority claim to register their international trademarks.

Draft Copyright Law

Currently, protection of original literary, artistic, musical, and dramatic works exists under the 1914 Copyright Act. The existing law does not accord protection to foreign copyright—Myanmar is not a signatory to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, nor is it a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. It has, however, signed the TRIPS agreement under the WTO and is therefore obligated to implement adequate intellectual property legislation.

Under the draft copyright law, protection will cover works created by nationals of other state members that adhere to treaties or conventions that relate to copyright. The protection will principally last for the lifetime of the creator and an additional 50 years after his or her death. The infringement of copyright is considered both a criminal and civil offense.

There is a lot to be said for Myanmar’s draft IP laws. The country’s industrial design law is separate from its patent law, unlike many jurisdictions, offering greater protection for industrial designs. Furthermore, the copyright law will recognize foreign copyright, meaning that foreign copyright holders’ works would be protected in Myanmar.

It is expected that Myanmar’s new government and parliament will be set up in March or April 2016. The draft laws will be open to public opinion and further revisions after they are published in a local newspaper.

As the government has shown a commitment to protecting intellectual property, refining investment laws, and acclimating Myanmar to the international community, investors can feel confident that future iterations of the draft laws will support foreign business.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More