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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More