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

September 21, 2020

Customs Recordation in Myanmar Fights Trade in Counterfeit Goods

Managing Intellectual Property

The Myanmar Customs Department (MCD) organized another Intellectual Property Awareness and Product Identification Workshop at its Customs Training School in Yangon on August 6, 2020, for its frontline customs officers. Such workshops are held numerous times every year, serving as a platform for foreign brand owners and their local representatives to educate and update the enforcement officers on methods for differentiating their genuine products from counterfeits and imitations when inspecting suspicious shipments at ports of entry into the country. The training sessions are also useful in encouraging collaborative discourse between the private and public sectors to improve the efficiency of their joint intellectual property rights enforcement efforts.

Customs Recordation System in Myanmar

Despite the absence of specific laws or written guidelines enumerating the procedure and framework for recordation of trademarks, the MCD does have a customs recordation system in place. The MCD is empowered under the archaic Sea Customs Act 1878 (as amended up to 2015) to seize counterfeit goods entering Myanmar by land or sea. Under Section 18 of the Act, goods bearing counterfeit trademarks and false trade descriptions are prohibited from entry into Myanmar.

Brand owners who have recorded trademarks at the Office of Registration of Deeds can record these marks at the MCD by furnishing the following:

  • Application letter;
  • Distribution agreement or supply agreement with local distributor or partner;
  • Declaration of ownership of trademark;
  • Cautionary notice published in Myanmar newspapers;
  • Date of first use in Myanmar and outside of Myanmar;
  • Description of product;
  • Trademark specimen;
  • Brief identification guide of counterfeit/imitation goods and original goods; and
  • Any other documents or information requested by the MCD.

If there are no complications, the recordation procedure can be completed in approximately two to four weeks. Upon recordation, it is also good practice for brand owners to organize product identification training sessions with customs officials. Thereafter, the MCD will identify infringing goods that arrive at the ports of entry throughout the country, and will notify the brand owners or their representatives before taking further legal and enforcement actions.

New Border Control Measures

It is still unclear whether the customs recordation system will be maintained when Myanmar’s new Trademark Law 2019 enters into force in the near future. Under this law, a customs seizure order procedure will be implemented whereby rights holders can submit an application to the director general of the MCD to seize infringing goods. Corresponding provisions are also found in the Copyright Law 2019.

In the procedure stipulated under the law, rights holders may submit an application, and the MCD will issue its decision within 30 days. The MCD may request additional information from the rights holder, who will have 15 business days to fulfil such a request. When accepting an application for seizure, the MCD may also request the rights holder to provide a guarantee. Each seizure order will last for six months, unless the rights holder requests a shorter period. Upon the seizure of suspicious items, the rights holder and the importer will have an opportunity to inspect the items and take further action on the shipment. If no further legal action is undertaken within 15 days (three days for perishable goods), the seized goods will be released.

Customs Recordation as Part of an IP Protection Strategy

Customs recordation in Myanmar can be a valuable and powerful tool in fighting the trade in counterfeit goods. It broadens the scope of IP rights protection from one only focused internally to one that considers international movement of goods. By involving the right representatives and officials in Myanmar, rights holders can ensure that their IP management strategy is ready to respond to threats from both within Myanmar and beyond.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
August 13, 2026
On August 6, 2026, the National Bank of Cambodia (NBC) issued a notice calling on business owners that issue electronic money, such as e-wallet accounts and stored-value membership cards, to notify the central bank within 90 days. The notice targets businesses that are not licensed banking or financial institutions or payment service providers, but have been issuing e-money to facilitate payments within their own networks. Failure to notify the NBC may result in legal action. Background and Regulatory Basis The NBC has observed that certain businesses, including cafes, restaurants, transportation companies, entertainment centers, and gas stations, have been issuing e-money through e-wallet accounts in mobile apps or membership cards to facilitate customer payments for products or services within their own networks. Customers create e-wallet accounts and load balances to pay for goods or services at the issuing business. The NBC describes this as “single-purpose e-money.” Under the 1999 Law on Banking and Financial Institutions, providing payment facilities to customers forms part of the operations of banking and financial institutions and requires an NBC license. In addition, article 20 of the 2017 Prakas on the Management of Payment Service Institutions further prohibits legal entities other than banking and financial institutions and payment service institutions from issuing e-money. However, article 20 also provides that issuing e-money in certain limited cases does not require a license, but the NBC must be notified in advance in writing. A business may issue single-purpose e-money without a payment service institution license provided it meets all the following conditions and submits written notice to the NBC: The maximum balance per account is KHR 200,000 (approximately USD 50) or equivalent. The total aggregate balance across all accounts does not exceed KHR 800 million (approximately USD 200,000) or equivalent. The e-money is used to pay for products or
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