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​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More