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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
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
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.
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