Myanmar: A closer look at series marks under the New Trademark Law

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Myanmar: A closer look at series marks under the New Trademark Law

Sponsored by

tillekegibbins.png
nick-hnwlli4zzri-unsplash.jpg

Yuwadee Thean-ngarm of Tilleke & Gibbins explains how Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department has worked to clarify uncertainty over series marks as the country aims to overhaul its IP system

Myanmar, which is now more than halfway through the scheduled soft opening of its Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the country’s New Trademark Law, is well on its way to the full realisation of its plans for a modernised IP system operating on par with international standards. As the first of four IP-related laws passed in 2019, the ongoing implementation of the Trademark Law affects definitions of trademarks and types of trademark applications.

Section 2 of the law defines a “mark” as “either a visible sign or a combination of signs, including one’s own names, alphabet letters, numbers, graphical representations, or compositions of color and tints to distinguish the goods or services of an enterprise from those of another enterprise. Within this scope, trademark, service mark, collective mark and certification mark are also included."

The “series mark” consists of a number of these marks, which resemble each other on the material particulars, but may differ in some aspect—for instance, a mark with different colour variations. However, there is no specific definition of what makes up a series mark in the Trademark Law itself, and there has also not yet been any clear guidance on the issue. 

The Trademark Rules, which set the guidelines for the trademark application and registration procedures, are still in the process of being finalised, are expected to include information on the possibility of filing series marks under the soft opening period. On December 29 2020, the IPD held a workshop to clarify various issues, and informed attendees that applications containing more than one trademark in a single application are prohibited under the new system. However, this seemed to contradict the Ministry of Commerce’s Order No. 63/2020, which had declared that the refiling of old marks under the soft opening period of the new Trademark Law had to be identical to the corresponding marks that were filed at the Office of the Registration of Deeds (ORD) under the old system. Some of these filings include series marks, or applications that contain multiple trademarks.

When this potential discrepancy was pointed out, the IPD responded by suggesting that this announcement did not prohibit to file the trademark under the new system during the soft opening, but the applicants can still reserve the right under this period by filing the relevant marks as single trademarks. That is, marks that were filed and registered at the ORD as series marks can be refiled as separate applications—one for each mark. Alternatively, holders of a previously filed series mark could choose to file only one mark out of the series during the soft-opening period, and then file the rest at a later date. Furthermore, the IPD emphasised that regardless of the actions taken, all applications filed during the soft-opening period will be accorded the same filing date, which will be that of the grand opening. 

This uncertainty over series marks and the subsequent clarification is an example of the many issues that the IPD has worked to iron out during the soft-opening period. It should also be seen as a normal process in the monumental task of a country overhauling its IP system, and a sign that the authorities are following through on their aims by working to settle questions and smooth the way for a fully operational system of filing and registering trademarks.

Yuwadee Thean-ngarm

Director, Tilleke & Gibbins

E: yuwadee.t@tilleke.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article