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

March 26, 2015

Well-Known Trademarks in Myanmar

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

From the time Myanmar opened its doors to the international community in 2011, there has been an influx of inward investment and a multitude of new ventures established in the country. As intellectual property (IP) is a vital asset for many of these companies, there has been an ever-increasing need for Myanmar to adopt a robust IP regime—particularly one that provides a solid foundation for well-known trademarks, in support of the large, multinational companies looking to invest in the country. Without a strong IP system, there potentially exists a serious impediment to the growth of businesses and investments that require IP protection.

Myanmar’s trademark law was originally due to take effect in October 2013. Its arrival was then postponed to July 2014, but it has now been delayed, once again. As it may be some time before the trademark law is implemented, this article addresses the protection of well-known trademarks in Myanmar under the current system and the proposed changes that may be introduced under the trademark law. The article also discusses Myanmar’s patent, industrial design, and copyright laws.

The Protection of Well-Known Trademarks

Under the current practice, identical or similar trademarks can be registered concurrently by more than one party in Myanmar because there is no trademark law, no official trademark search facility or database, no examination process for similar trademarks, and no opposition or cancellation processes against trademark applications prior to their registration. Currently, not only do regular trademarks lack protection, but well-known trademarks lack protection of owners’ rights. Therefore, identical trademarks can be recorded and published in a cautionary notice to show they are protected in Myanmar.     

Shop owners may use names and well-known trademarks as their shop and/or business names because the rights of trademark owners may be unknown to them. Additionally, under the current law, such shop owners may actually have the right to use such well-known trademarks and names with their shops if they have recorded a declaration of ownership with the Registrar of Deeds and Assurances. Therefore, if these shop owners believe that they have the legal authority to use these trademarks with their businesses and shops, trademark owners are unable to prevent such infringement of their trademarks, unless they have already protected their trademark rights in line with the current practice.

A legitimate trademark owner, seeking legal recourse against an alleged infringer who has acted in bad faith, may:

  1. send a cease-and-desist letter that orders a stop to the infringement; and/or
  2. request a cancellation action against the infringed registered trademark; and/or
  3. request a temporary injunction from the court and bringing the case to court.

In taking action against an infringer, a legitimate trademark owner must demonstrate actual use of the trademark to prove they are the legitimate trademark owner and have a better right over the mark in Myanmar. In order to demonstrate actual use, a trademark owner must sell and distribute products bearing the trademark on its own or via a distributor. This may, however, prove to be difficult, because the legitimate trademark owner may not be able to provide evidence claiming a better right over the alleged infringer for products which are not related to their business.

Furthermore, foreigners and foreign companies are not allowed to operate in trading and retailing businesses in Myanmar. For this reason, trademark owners, as well as IP owners, will face a limitation on their capacity to sell and distribute products, because they are required to find a local distributor and/or a business partner for trading, retailing, and/or importing their products in Myanmar. It may be difficult for IP owners to find a right local distributor and/or business partner, making it more difficult to use their trademarks and IP rights in Myanmar for certain products or in certain industries.

The Draft Trademark Law

The new trademark law was expected to come into effect in 2014. At present, however, it has yet to be implemented. It is hoped that the new trademark law will take effect in 2015, so that mechanisms of trademark protection and solutions to a number of problems that have arisen out of the current practice will be provided for. Such problems include:

  1. how to authenticate a trademark right that has arisen out of the current practice of recording the declaration in the trademark registration under the trademark law;
  2. how the examination will be conducted to identify the rights of the trademark owners between two or more trademark owners who have recorded the same trademark with the Registry of Deeds and Assurances;
  3. solutions for the real trademark owner, who would retrieve their IP rights from the alleged trademark owner, who had obtained the senior IP right from the current practice; and  
  4. supporting evidence for legitimate trademark owners in proving their better right over a disputed mark. This applies not only to actual use of a disputed trademark in Myanmar, but also to use of the mark in other countries, which should be considered in both better right and unfair competition disputes.

Patent, Industrial Design, and Copyright Laws

In addition to the trademark law, patent and industrial design laws are also expected to be introduced. This will have a significant impact on IP owners and particularly those in the manufacturing, industrial, pharmaceutical, automobile, and technology industries, as patents and designs are central to their businesses. The current practice does not presently provide sufficient protection for patents or industrial designs.

In terms of copyright, Myanmar’s current copyright law does not afford protection to foreign copyrights—Myanmar’s Copyright Act of 1911 is considerably outdated, having been last amended in 1914. Foreign works are not recognized by Myanmar’s Copyright Act, and so foreign copyright owners cannot successfully claim their rights based on the current law. There is currently very little jurisprudence to go by, as copyright protection is given to works created by Myanmar nationals and/or works first published in Myanmar. Thus, only local owners can take legal action against infringers. Similarly, it is very difficult, without recognition of foreign works, to apply for injunctive relief with local courts or to persuade customs to seize infringing goods. However, if an infringing trademark is clearly visible on such copies or goods, it may be possible to proceed on the basis of trademark infringement instead of copyright infringement.

Adding to the difficulty of preventing copyright infringement, 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 Work. Myanmar has, however, signed the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights under the World Trade Organization, and is therefore obligated to implement adequate intellectual property legislation.

Enacting up-to-date intellectual property laws in Myanmar is a foremost priority. The four IP laws will help stimulate investment and innovation in Myanmar as investors become increasingly more expectant of a country that has recognized its own tremendous potential and acknowledged the need to put in place a robust IP regime. Once Myanmar implements its IP laws and brings itself in line with international conventions, the country’s appeal as a hub for investment will soar to levels much greater than they already are.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More