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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
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
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
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,