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

June 5, 2019

Practical Implications of Myanmar’s New Trademark Law

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On January 30, 2019, Myanmar’s long-awaited Trademark Law was signed into law, effectively establishing the framework for a comprehensive trademark registration system open to both foreign and domestic trademark owners. This highly anticipated move by the government marks an essential step in its efforts to increase Myanmar’s attractiveness as a destination for foreign investment.   

Although the law has been officially approved and signed, the effective date has yet to be announced. Before that can happen, the government must first set up the necessary administrative bodies and prepare enabling legislation to support the new system. Once all of the pieces are in place, the application gates will open and the new system will come into effect. At that time, any trademark owners that have recorded their rights under the previous system will have to file new applications to ensure that their marks continue to be protected under the new law. Until further notice, new recordal applications, renewals of existing recordals and all other trademark declarations will still be accepted under the old system.   

A brief overview of the salient features of the new Trademark Law, which is now the principal piece of legislation governing the protection of trademarks in Myanmar, is outlined below.

Administrating Ministry    

The core government ministry administrating the new Trademark Law is the Ministry of Commerce. Four other ministries—the Ministry of Information, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation, and the Ministry of Education—are named as having supervisory roles.

Requirement to Re-file    

Section 93(a) of the Trademark Law states that if trademark owners that have previously recorded their marks with the Office of Registration of Deeds (ORD) or have not recorded their marks but can provide evidence of actual use in Myanmar want to enjoy rights relating to their marks, they must apply for registration in accordance with the new law.

Opposition    

Oppositions are allowed for the first 60 days from the date of publication. Oppositions can rely on relative grounds of refusal (eg, identical or similar to existing marks, unauthorised applications and bad faith).

Appeals

Registry appeals can be filed within 60 days of the decision date. Further appeals can be filed with the court within 90 days of receipt of the registry’s decision.

Invalidation Actions

Invalidation actions can be lodged against registered marks. A limitation period of five years from the registration date applies, unless the claimant is relying on bad-faith claims.

Non-use Cancellation Actions

If a registered trademark has not been used for three continuous years, it may become vulnerable to a cancellation action.

Mediation Procedure    

The availability of mediation procedures remains unclear. However, if one or more parties apply to register identical or similar marks on the same day, or for the same priority date, the registration officer will instruct all applicants to negotiate among themselves in order to determine the name of the applicant for the mark and to resubmit within a specified period.

Geographical Identifications    

Geographical identification rights can be applied for by:

  • persons who produce goods from natural products or resources;
  • producers of agricultural products;
  • producers of handicraft or industrial products; and
  • responsible persons from  government departments and organizations representing the persons described in the previous three categories.

The term of protection will be extended provided that the special characteristics, qualities or reputation for which the mark has been allowed protection continue to exist.   

Licenses    

Trademark licenses must be recorded.

Trade Name   

Trade name protection is available either as a part of a trademark or separately and will be protected with or without registration. There is no mandatory requirement for registration.

Infringement    

Civil and criminal actions are available to address infringement. Criminal penalties include up to 10 years’ imprisonment (for repeat offenders) and a fine of up to MMK10 million (approximately USD6,500) (also for repeat offenders).

Filing Procedure   

The filing process will be more streamlined under the new Trademark Law than under the previous system and will be in line with international trademark registration standards, making it easier for both local and international IP owners to submit applications and obtain trademark protection. The general filing procedure is laid out in Figure 1.

Next Steps for Trademark Owners   

Although the procedure and administrative bodies for the new system are not yet in place, the new law lays out the documents and information required for registration. In advance of the law becoming effective, trademark owners can begin to compile and prepare:

  • requests for registration;
  • the name and address of the applicants for registration (or the representative’s name and address, if submitted by a representative);
  • clear and complete representations of the applied-for marks; and
  • the names and types of goods and services requested for registration in accordance with international trademark classifications.

In addition to these required documents, the following information and documents should be provided, where applicable:

  • the registration number, type, and country of origin of the entity, if the applicant is applying on behalf of a legal entity;
  • documents supporting, describing, and requesting the claim of priority right, if the applicant requests such a right;
  • documents supporting, describing, and requesting exhibition priority right, if the applicant requests such a right;
  • a certificate of registration (declaration of ownership), if the applied-for mark is recorded at the ORD; and
  • other requirements that may be set by a directorate that will be established to oversee trademark registration.

The documentary evidence to support new applications includes proof of existing recordals with the ORD. Although it is not yet clear what weight these will have during the trademark examination process, trademark owners should audit their portfolios to ensure that their rights are recorded and up to date, in order to secure maximum leverage under the new system.    

Similarly, the Trademark Law refers to providing evidence of use in order to support a trademark application. Therefore, trademark owners should begin to collate all evidence of existing use, including cautionary notices (which can still be published), advertisements, and office stationery.   

For rights holders whose existing marks are subject to licensing arrangements in Myanmar, these agreements should also be audited and checked for up-to-date and accurate depictions of the relationship with franchisees and licensees, in order to avoid any ambiguities when evidencing use.

Conclusion   

Prior to the announcement of the new Trademark Law, revised IP legislation in Myanmar had been pending for a number of years. Although the announcement of the new legislation provides comfort and ease of mind to brand owners, there is still a long way to go before the law can come into effect. At present, the Ministry of Commerce is planning the required framework in order to support implementation of the law. Among other things, the framework includes the creation of an IP office at which filings and operational procedures will be centralized. Although the location of the office has yet to be determined, current plans suggest that it could be established between the start of the new fiscal year (October 2019) and the upcoming 2020 general election.   

The Trademark Law is the first of a handful of new IP laws that will form the basis of Myanmar’s reformed intellectual property system. An Industrial Design Law was also passed on January 30, 2019, followed by a new Patent Law signed into legislation on March 11, and a new Copyright Law on May 24, substantially expanding the rights of IP owners in the jurisdiction. These laws will help to build a robust IP landscape in Myanmar, which will prove to be instrumental in attracting higher numbers of foreign investors.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More