Protecting industrial designs in Myanmar: a practical filing guide

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

Protecting industrial designs in Myanmar: a practical filing guide

Sponsored by

tillekegibbins.png
Golden Rock of Mt Kyaiktiyo, Myanmar

Khin Myo Myo Aye and Niko Myint Soe of Tilleke & Gibbins outline the key filing requirements and practical considerations for securing industrial design protection under Myanmar’s developing registration system

Since Myanmar’s Industrial Design Law of 2019 came into force, the country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) and its dedicated Industrial Design Division have worked to establish functional examination and registration procedures, bringing Myanmar’s design protection framework progressively in line with international standards.

By March 2026, roughly 300 industrial design applications had been published in the IPD’s online database, representing a meaningful benchmark in the development of this still-emerging system. Additional applications remain under examination and will be published upon completion of that process.

For rights holders looking to protect industrial design rights in Myanmar, understanding the specific filing requirements – and the practical realities of navigating them – is essential to securing timely, valid protection.

What a valid filing requires

Myanmar’s IPD requires that a defined set of particulars be submitted at the time of filing for an application to be accorded a filing date. Failing to meet these mandatory requirements from the outset can prevent a date from being established and introduce delays that may affect priority claims or commercial timelines.

The mandatory filing particulars include:

  • Full identifying information for both the applicant and the creator;

  • A notarised appointment of representative form;

  • The applicable Locarno Classification for the product to which the design relates;

  • Graphic representations of the design across multiple standard views;

  • A written description of the design; and

  • Where applicable, details relating to any priority claim or request for deferred publication.

Filing fees must also be paid upon submission.

Beyond the mandatory particulars, applicants are typically required to furnish supplementary documentation either at the time of filing or in response to queries raised during formality examination. Supplementary materials commonly include evidence establishing the applicant’s legal entitlement to the design (particularly relevant where the applicant and creator are not the same party), as well as relevant corporate and authorisation records.

Where priority rights are claimed based on an earlier foreign filing under the World Trade Organization route, which is available under the current filing practice, supporting documents must generally be filed within three months of the Myanmar application date. Any documents that are not in English must be accompanied by certified translations.

The precise supplementary requirements are not fixed and may vary depending on the specifics of the application and any issues identified during the formality review.

Practical considerations for applicants

Myanmar’s industrial design regime is still maturing, and applicants should approach the process in that context. Several considerations are worth bearing in mind:

  • Prepare supplementary documents early – even documents that are not strictly required at the time of filing should be assembled and ready. The formality examination stage can surface requests for materials that, if not readily available, can delay the examination process significantly.

  • Ensure submissions are complete and well organised – incomplete or poorly organised applications are a common source of procedural objections. Taking care with the quality of the initial filing reduces the risk of avoidable back and forth with the IPD.

  • Engage a qualified local representative – applicants filing from outside Myanmar, for whom appointment of a local representative is mandatory, as well as those with complex ownership structures, should retain experienced local counsel. A representative familiar with Myanmar’s IPD processes can help anticipate examiner expectations, navigate requirements efficiently, and address issues before they become obstacles.

As Myanmar’s intellectual property system continues to develop, early movers that establish registered design rights stand to benefit from the protections the system affords. Careful preparation and foresight will help rights holders efficiently navigate the filing process and secure protection for their valuable industrial design assets in Myanmar.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
The firm was rebuilding its IP practice through a string of patent hires and a Texas expansion, but its dissolution has put the newly built talent back into the market
Gift this article