Myanmar Trademark Law 2019 Section 13(c), (e), (f) and (g): Prohibited and Deceptive Signs

Some trademark refusals in Myanmar do not depend on market confusion or brand strength at all. Instead, they arise because the sign itself is prohibited by law. Section 13 of The Trademark Law 2019 contains several absolute bars directed at public policy, morality, state integrity, official emblems, protected international symbols, and deceptive signs. These rules matter because they apply regardless of whether the applicant adopted the mark in good faith and regardless of whether consumers currently associate the sign with a particular business. If a proposed mark contains offensive content, falsely suggests product qualities or origin, or reproduces protected official symbols, the Intellectual Property Department is expected to refuse it strictly.

The Legal Framework: Section 13(c), Section 13(e), Section 13(f) and Section 13(g)

• Section 13(c): Refuses any mark affecting public order, morality, faith and conscience, integrity of the State, or venerated culture and cherished customs of ethnic groups of the State.
• Section 13(e): Refuses marks that may mislead the public regarding the nature, quality, geographical origin, or other characteristics of the goods or services.
• Section 13(f): Refuses marks consisting of the total or partial reproduction or imitation of flags, armorial bearings, emblems, official hallmarks and signs of control and warranty of the State, or those of relevant international intergovernmental organizations, unless authorized.
• Section 13(g): Refuses marks containing emblems, flags, armorial bearings, abbreviations, or names protected under international treaties to which Myanmar is a party, including protections analogous to Paris Convention Article 6ter.
• Section 23: Enables the Examiner to notify an objection and permit amendment within the prescribed period.
• Section 26: Allows any person to oppose on Section 13 grounds within 60 days after publication.
• Section 50: Allows invalidation on absolute grounds at any time if the registration should not have been granted under Section 13.

Absolute Prohibitions on Public Policy, Official Symbols, and Deceptive Matter

The common feature of these provisions is that they protect public interests that go beyond the applicant and any private competitor. Section 13(c) protects social order, morality, religious and cultural respect, and state integrity. Section 13(e) protects consumers and the market from false or misleading claims. Section 13(f) and Section 13(g) protect public authority and the integrity of official and international symbols.

These prohibitions are typically applied strictly because they are not about balancing competing commercial rights. If a sign falls within one of these categories, the issue is usually whether the problem exists, not whether the applicant has enough use or reputation to overcome it. Unlike descriptiveness under Section 13(a) and Section 13(b), there is no acquired distinctiveness cure for immoral, deceptive, or protected-symbol marks.

What the Intellectual Property Department Considers Prohibited or Deceptive

Public order, morality, religion, and culture under Section 13(c)

The language of Section 13(c) is broad and expressly includes public order, morality, faith and conscience, integrity of the State, venerated culture, and cherished customs of ethnic groups. For businesses, that means the IPD is likely to assess proposed marks not only for obscenity and vulgarity, but also for signs that could be seen as insulting religion, exploiting sacred imagery inappropriately, mocking state institutions, or denigrating ethnic culture.

The guide indicates that examiner practice is expected to be very strict. Examples of risk include profanity, graphic imagery, hate-related symbols, material that could be considered blasphemous, and slogans that might be viewed as inciting unrest or undermining state integrity. Even if a mark is fashionable or provocative in another market, it may not be acceptable in Myanmar if it conflicts with the values expressly protected by Section 13(c).

For multinational businesses, local review is essential where campaigns use edgy humor, religious references, or culturally sensitive iconography. A mark that is acceptable elsewhere may encounter refusal in Myanmar based on the broader wording of Section 13(c).

Deceptive and misleading signs under Section 13(e)

Section 13(e) addresses signs that may mislead the public as to nature, quality, geographical origin, or other characteristics. The legal focus is objective commercial falsity. If the mark conveys a factual message that is untrue or likely to mislead, refusal follows.

Examples include signs that falsely claim composition, purity, origin, or intended use. A mark suggesting that goods are made in Switzerland when they are not, or that a textile is pure silk when it is synthetic, would be vulnerable. The same applies to misleading images and not only words. A logo or emblematic image can be deceptive if it falsely conveys official approval, origin, or product characteristics.

The difference between deceptive and laudatory matter is important. General puffery or subjective praise, such as “superfine” or “excellent,” is less likely to be treated as deceptive unless it contains a verifiable false implication. But where the mark states or strongly implies a concrete fact, the IPD is likely to act cautiously.

Official flags, emblems, and hallmarks under Section 13(f)

Section 13(f) creates a clear prohibition on reproducing or imitating protected state and intergovernmental emblems. This includes full or partial reproductions and also imitations. The rule is not limited to exact copies. If the overall sign resembles an official emblem closely enough to appear governmental or quasi-governmental, that may be enough to trigger refusal.

The guide states that the only real cure is authorization from the competent authority or relevant organization. In commercial practice, applicants should assume that logos incorporating the Myanmar flag, state emblems, official seals, or protected intergovernmental symbols will be refused.

Treaty-protected names and symbols under Section 13(g)

Section 13(g) supplements Section 13(f) by covering protected emblems, abbreviations, and names under treaties binding on Myanmar. This aligns with the international principle that certain official and intergovernmental symbols must remain outside private appropriation. Use of a protected abbreviation or name can therefore be objectionable even if the design is modified.

Language, translation, and combined marks

These grounds apply regardless of script. A prohibited message in Burmese, English, or another language remains prohibited if the relevant meaning is understood. Likewise, transliterated or translated forms of protected designations may still present issues. Combined marks are assessed as a whole, but a prohibited or deceptive element in one part of the sign can taint the entire mark. A logo does not cure an objectionable word, and a respectable word does not save a logo that imitates a state emblem.

Key Case Law

No leading cases have been published on Section 13(c), Section 13(e), Section 13(f), or Section 13(g) under Myanmar’s current trademark regime. Applicants should therefore proceed on the basis that the Intellectual Property Department will apply these provisions according to their text and general international trademark practice, with little tolerance for borderline filings involving public policy, deception, or official insignia.

The Procedure for Responding to a Prohibited-Sign or Deceptive-Mark Refusal

Responses to these refusals must be realistic because some defects are not curable.

• Step 1: Determine which subsection is cited. Section 13(c), Section 13(e), Section 13(f), and Section 13(g) raise different issues and require different evidence, if any can help.
• Step 2: For a Section 13(e) deception objection, assess whether the mark actually conveys the factual meaning alleged by the Examiner. Evidence may sometimes show that the term is fanciful or does not communicate a literal claim in the relevant market.
• Step 3: If the objection concerns geographic or quality implications, consider narrowing the goods or changing the mark if the claim cannot be substantiated.
• Step 4: For Section 13(f) or Section 13(g), ask whether the sign reproduces or imitates a protected emblem, name, or abbreviation. If yes, the practical solution is usually rebranding unless formal authorization exists.
• Step 5: For Section 13(c), evaluate whether the concern can be addressed by removing the offending matter. There is no acquired distinctiveness defense to immoral or public-order objections.
• Step 6: Respond within the Section 23 period. If the objection cannot honestly be overcome, filing a revised mark is often better than litigating a prohibited-sign issue.
• Step 7: If the Registrar refuses the application, appeal may be available under Section 65, but the chances depend heavily on whether the sign can genuinely be shown not to fall within the statutory prohibition.

Applicants should remember that even if a problematic mark somehow reaches registration, Section 50 allows invalidation on absolute grounds. These are not defects to postpone and revisit later.

Strategic Recommendations

• Recommendation: Screen all marks for official-symbol risk at the design stage. Avoid flags, seals, badges, and emblems that could appear governmental or intergovernmental.
• Recommendation: Vet quality and origin claims with business teams before filing. Brand names that imply composition, purity, or origin should be checked against the real product.
• Recommendation: Conduct local cultural review for marks using religious, ethnic, or culturally significant imagery. Section 13(c) is broader than a simple obscenity rule.
• Recommendation: Review translated meanings and transliterations. A harmless-looking foreign-language element may have a problematic meaning in Burmese, or vice versa.
• Recommendation: Use redesign, not argument, where the sign reproduces a protected emblem. Authorization is rare, and an imitation issue is seldom worth contesting.

Common Mistakes

• Mistake: Assuming that partial imitation of an official emblem is safe. Section 13(f) covers total or partial reproduction and imitation.
• Mistake: Treating cultural or religious references as ordinary branding material. Section 13(c) expressly protects faith, conscience, and cherished customs.
• Mistake: Believing that marketing disclaimers will cure a deceptive trademark. If the mark itself misleads, the registration can still be refused.
• Mistake: Focusing only on word meaning and ignoring images. Device elements can also be deceptive or prohibited.
• Mistake: Trying to solve a prohibited-sign problem with acquired distinctiveness evidence. These grounds are not curable through use.

Key takeaway: Under Section 13(c), Section 13(e), Section 13(f), and Section 13(g), Myanmar applies strict absolute bars to offensive, deceptive, and officially protected matter. If a sign raises these issues, the prudent response is usually to revise the branding early rather than assume that use, reputation, or stylization will overcome the objection.