商標権に関するモデル事例研究(ミャンマー回答)
争点
本事例研究においては,ミャンマーの現行法及び商標に関連する新しい法案に従い解
決すべきいくつかの諸問題が存在する。それらは下記のとおりである。
(1) 商標権侵害に関する刑事的及び民事的救済措置の有無
(2) 商標権侵害行為に対する民事的及び刑事的訴訟手続を開始するための事前
通知を交付する義務の有無
(3) 輸入総代理店は民事訴訟における原告としての資格があるのかどうか
(4) 商標 1〜9 の付いた商品を生産,輸入,販売及び輸出する行為について
(5) 商標の類似性の判断に関する一般的な基準の有無
(6) 全世界的に有名な商標が商標に関する判決に与える影響
(7) 登録された商標である"DolfiN"の代わりに,"DolfiN"という商標を使用した
場合の影響
(8) 商標申請時点での侵害商標との非類似性に関する認定の影響
(9) 未登録商標権による訴訟提訴権
※(注記) 以下,特に付記のない条文については別紙条文集(英文のみ)を参照のこと。
1. 救済措置(争点(1)への回答)
ミャンマーでは,商標侵害に対する刑事訴訟手続及び民事訴訟手続の双方は,ミ
ャンマーの現行法に基づき提訴することが可能である。刑事訴訟手続は,現行ミャン
マー刑法第 478, 480, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487 から 488 条に基づき提起することが可能であ
り,民事訴訟手続は,現行特定救済法第 54 条及び民事訴訟法第 9 条に基づき提起する
ことが可能である。これら 2 つの司法手続は別個に処理される。
同様に,ミャンマー新商標法案第 35 条(a)により,商標権侵害に対し,刑事訴訟
及び民事訴訟の双方を開始することが可能となる。これら 2 つの司法手続は別個に処理
される。
商標権侵害に関する刑事訴訟及び民事訴訟の事例は,ほとんど存在しない。訴訟
事例の情報は現在も収集中であり,今後提出する予定である。22. 民事訴訟又は刑事告訴を開始するための要件(争点(2)への回答)
ミャンマーには,商標登録に関する法令が存在しない。商標権侵害に対する刑事
訴訟及び民事訴訟手続は,現行の民事訴訟法又は刑事訴訟法に従って行われる。これ
らの法典によると,商標権侵害に関する訴訟又は告発に先立ち事前の通知又は警告を
交付する義務は存在しない。
ミャンマーには商標法が存在しないので,1962 年までは登記を受け付ける機関
が存在しなかった。しかしながら,この権利に関する紛争が徐々に増加したため,政府
は,1962 年登記法第 18 条(f)に従い商標権の登記所に関連した業務遂行のために,総
括監察官及びその証書保証書登記所(農業省管轄)に任務を割り当てた。従って,総括
監察官及びその証書保証書登記所は,商標を登録するための 1962 年指令書 13 号を発
布した。
この指令書に基づき,商標権者と称される者が,商標権の宣言書を作成し,こ
の宣言書を証書登記事務所に登記できる実務が発展した。この宣言書が登記されると,
たいていの場合,この商標を侵害しないように人々に呼びかける警告文が英語版日刊新
聞に掲示される。商標権侵害が起こった場合,登記された宣言書及び警告文が,ミャン
マー国内での商標の「使用」を一応証明する証拠(反証のない限り立証したことになる
証拠)としての機能を果たす。
ミャンマー新商標法案第 34 条1
に基づき,保護を得るためには商標を登録するこ
とが義務付けられたが,商標権侵害に対する民事訴訟又は刑事告訴を開始する目的で事
前の公示又は警告を交付する必要はない。
3. 輸入総代理店が訴訟を起こす資格はあるのか(争点(3)への回答)
現行法律によれば,民事訴訟における原告としての資格を輸入総代理店に与える
規定は存在しない。しかしながら,"Gasper & Co v. Leong Chye & Co"2
の事件では,
商標権侵害を理由とした差止め命令及び/又は損害賠償を求める民事訴訟において,原
告としての資格が輸入総代理店に与えられた。
ミャンマー新商標法案の下で,この事件において原告としての資格が輸入総代理
店に与えられたか否かは明確でない。
4. 商標権侵害(争点(4)への回答)
現行刑法の第 478, 480, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487 から 488 条によれば,偽造商標の付
された商品を製造,保有及び販売する Bonito の各行為は,商標権侵害に当たる。更に,
1 " 商標の所有権者が X 章を遵守している場合は,この所有権者は,登録の有効期間中,本章に規定
される登録商標に関連した権利を享受するものとする。"
2 Indian Law Report (1934) Vol 12, page 5343関税法及び水産物関税法によれば,これら商品の輸出及び輸入も,商標権侵害に当た
る。現行民事訴訟法第 9 条及び現行特定救済法第 54 条に基づき,Tuna も Bonito の行
為に対し,差止命令,損害賠償,補償を請求する民事訴訟を起こす権利を有する。
ミャンマー新商標法案第 86 条によれば,偽造商標の付された商品を製造,販売,
輸入及び輸出する Bonito の各行為は,商標権侵害による刑事上の犯罪に当たる。
偽造商標の付された商品を製造及び販売する Bonito の各行為が,この新法案に
基づき民事上の商標権侵害に当たるか否かは明確ではない。
しかしながら,Bonito の製造,販売及び輸入行為は,同法案の第 11 章に基づき,
民事上の商標権侵害に当たると推定される可能性があり,Bonito の輸出行為は,同法
案の第 49 条(b)に基づき,商標権侵害に当たる。
同法案の第 35 条に基づき,Tuna が,民事訴訟及び刑事訴訟の双方の法的手段を
取る権利を有することは明確である。民事訴訟法第 9 条及び特定救済法第 54 条の規定
に沿って解釈した場合は,Tuna は,Bonito に対し,差止命令,損害賠償及び補償を求
める民事訴訟を起こす権利を有することとなる。
5.商標の類似性に関する一般的な基準(争点(5)への回答)
ミャンマーの現行法律には,商標の類似性を判断する一般的な基準を規定してい
る明文規定は民事訴訟法に存在しない。
しかしながら,ミャンマー刑法第 28 条では,偽造に関して定義されている。ミ
ャンマーの判例法に基づけば,商標の類似性を判断する一般的な基準は存在し,2 つの
商標の間に類似性が認められるならば,模倣品であると断言するに十分であり,当該具
体的な状況においては,商品が通常又は第一次的に販売される人々に対する詐欺を目論
むものであると判断され得るものである。
ミャンマーにおいては,商標の類似性に関する一般的な基準についての裁判所
の判決は下記のとおりである。
○しろまる 問題となる 2 つの商標は,同一である必要はなく,わずかな違いがある類似性
は,商標権侵害を主張するに十分である3。○しろまる 英語に翻訳された商標"Nanyang" "Elepant" "Elephant Star"の意味は,ミャンマ
ー語での "Elephant"商標と類似又は同一である "Nanyang Sin Kyal" と同じ意味を有する4。○しろまる "Taung Gyi Mauk Mai"とは,自然化粧品のための器具を含めた商標である。
外見,プラスチック容器,及び指示書が類似したものを使用した"Shan Maunk Mai"
3 U MaungMaung (a) Alibi Vs. DawKhin Than Myint 1975 BLR 72
4 Nanyang Industry Ltd Vs Gold Asia Rubber Manufacturing, Special Civil Appeal Case No. 48, (Special Bench
–Three Judges Sitting), Supreme Court (Yangon), 20054という異なる商標の商品が市場に出回った場合は,一時的差止命令を認める合理的な根
拠となる5。○しろまる ある特定の商品に関する商標権者は,全く異なる性質の商品に関して第三者が
当該商標を使用することを禁止又は防止する権利を有していない6。○しろまる 模倣品に該当すると判断するためには,2 つの商標が隅から隅まで類似してい
ることは必要ではないが,法律の観点からすると,消費者を"だます行為"につながる
可能性がある程度に 2 つの商標に類似性が存在している場合は,模倣品に該当すると判
断するためには十分である7。ミャンマー新商標法案に商標の類似性を判断するための一般的な基準は存在し
ない。しかしながら,上記の判例法による商標の類似性を判断するための一般的な基
準を使用することにより,ミャンマーの裁判所は,この基準に従い,商標権侵害に関
する事件を判断するであろう。
登録商標と被疑侵害商標 1 から 9 までの間に同一性又は類似性があるか否かを判
断するために,裁判所は,これら商標の外見,発音,観念(意味合い)及び侵害者の意
図を精査する。ミャンマー国内での議論によれば,結論は下記のとおりである。マー
ク(1)及び(2)の事例は商標権侵害に当たり,残り 7 つのマークは Tuna の商標権を
侵害しているとはいえないと判断される。
番号 外見 発音 観念(意味合い) 意図 結論
1 O O ? O O
2 O O ? O O
3 ×ばつ O ? ×ばつ ×ばつ
4 ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ
5 ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ
6 ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ
7 ×ばつ O ×ばつ/O ×ばつ/O ×ばつ/O
8 ×ばつ ×ばつ/O (発音できる
ならば)
O ×ばつ ×ばつ
9 O (DolfiN 以外の単
語が小さく表記さ
れていれば)×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ/O ×ばつ/O
5 U Tin Lett (a) U Sai Lett and one Vs. U KyawNyein, Year 2000, Special Civil Appeal Case No. 23 (Special
Bench), Yangon, 2001 BLR -128
6 John Walkers Vs. U Than Shwe 1968 BLR 73
7 Gaw Shan Soot Vs E.C Madah (1952, BLR, 136 (H.C)56. 全世界的によく知られた商標(争点(6)への回答)
ミャンマー国内でよく知られた商標(周知商標)を保護するための規定や判例法
は存在しない。全世界的によく知られた商標は,商標の類似性の判断に影響を与えない。
しかしながら,ミャンマーの現行法律及び判例法によれば,この事例において全
世界的に有名な商標の商標権者がミャンマー国内でかかる商標を使用すれば,商標の
類似性の判断に影響を与える可能性がある。
商標権侵害者に対する訴訟を起こすに際し,正当な商標権者は,自身は正当に商
標を所有しており,ミャンマー国内では,商標に対するより良い権利を保有しているこ
とを証明するために,当該商標の実際の使用例を立証しなければならない。
実際の使用例を立証するために,商標権者は,商標の付された商品を,自身で又
は販売店を介して販売及び流通させなければならない。しかしながら,その証明は困難
である可能性がある。なぜなら,正当な商標権者は,彼らの事業には関連のない製品に
関し,商標権侵害容疑者に対しより良い権利を主張するための証拠を提出できない可能
性があるためである。
ミャンマー新商標法案第 35 条(a) (3)及び第 76 条(b)には,ミャンマー国内におい
て周知商標を保護する規定がある。
新商標法案は,ミャンマーの周知商標を認識している。この法案では,周知商標
とは,所定基準に従いミャンマー連邦共和国内でよく知られている商標であると定義さ
れている。
同法案第 101 条によれば,商標を付する特定の商品又は役務に関するミャンマー
連邦の公衆の関連分野において周知の商標と認定されるための基準は,連邦の所管省庁
が決定できる。しかしながら,この認定は,ミャンマー国内で登録されていない周知商
標であることが条件である。
7. 使用されていない商標の取り消し(争点 7 (1)及び 7 (2)への回答)
争点 7 (1)に関して,登録商標の特徴を変更することなしに異なるデザインの商
標を使用することが,登録商標を使用しないことに該当する又は使用しないことに相
当すると定めている現行法又は判決の明文規定は存在しない。
新商標法案第 49 条(b) (1)によれば,登録商標と異なるデザインの商標を使用する
ことは,登録商標の使用に当たる又は使用に相当する。
争点 7 (2)に関して,商標の不使用は,商標の類似性又は侵害性の判断に影響を与
える可能性がある。
ミャンマーの判例法によると,ミャンマー国内での商標の使用が保護の対象とな
る前提条件であり,不使用を理由として商標権が失効する可能性がある。6商標権者は,その商標を使用しない場合又は商標を放棄する場合,権利を失う可
能性があるが,商標の不使用の正確な期間又は商標の放棄を限定する規定又は判決は
存在していなかった8。使用されていない商標の取消しに関する明確な現在の慣習は存在しない。不使用
による取消しも,新商標法案において規定される予定である。商標権者が,正当な理
由なしに,申請日から連続 3 年間,当該商標を使用しなかった場合,登記機関は商標
の登録を取り消すことができる。
8. 出願の際の主張の影響(争点(8)への回答)
登録商標に関して,出願手続において Tuna が"Dolphin"商標とは類似していない
と認めたことを,裁判手続において証拠として使用できることに関しての現行法律及
び判例法の明文規定は存在しない。従って,ミャンマー証拠法においては禁反言の規
定が存在するものの,"Dolphin"商標との非類似性を認めたということが,商標権侵害
事件における類似性の判断に影響を与えるか否かについては明確でない。
新商標法案第 95 条によれば,Tuna が商標登録を出願した時点でその商標に
"Dolphin"(上記(2)で説明したとおり)との類似性はなかったとする Tuna の主張は,証
明可能である。
従って,Tunaが商標登録を出願した時点でその商標に"Dolphin"との類似性はなか
ったとするTunaの主張は,この事件における各商標間の類似性の判断に影響を与える
可能性がある。
9. 未登録商標の所有権者の権利(争点(9)への回答)
争点(2)への回答で説明したとおり,ミャンマーの現行法及び判例法の下では,商
標権侵害に対する民事訴訟又は刑事告訴を提訴するために関連商標を登録する義務はな
い。
従って,Tunaがミャンマー国内でその商標を使用する場合は,その時点で,
Bonitoに対し,関税法,水産物関税法及びミャンマー商品商標法に基づく訴訟を含めた
訴訟を提起できる資格がある。
今回は,Tunaには新商標法案第35条9
に基づき関連商標を登録する義務が生じる
が,当該商標が周知商標でなく,ミャンマー国内で登録されていないならば,Tunaは,
訴訟を提起できる資格を有さないことになる。
8 Aung Gun Chun (a) Mg Chun and two v. B.Y.C Soap Factory, 1966, B.L.R, (C.C) 1038
1. 付属書(6)参照7しかしながら,Tunaの商標が周知商標であり,既にミャンマー国内で登録され
た商標であるならば,Tunaは,新商標法案第35条(a) (3)に基づき,異なる商品又は役務
のために登録された,周知商標と同一又は類似した商標の使用を防止できる権利を有す
る。更に,ミャンマー公正競争法第17条及び第18条に基づき,Tunaは,訴訟を提起す
ることもできる。
更に,Tunaの商標が周知商標であるが,ミャンマー国内で登録されていない
場合は,Tunaは,新商標法案第76条(b)に基づき,同一又は類似の商品又は役務に関
する周知商標と同一又は類似の商標の使用を防止できる権利を有する。
Myanmar’s Response to the Questions of the Model Case Study as to the
Trade Mark Right
Issues
For this case study, there are some issues to be solved under the existing laws of
Myanmar and under the new Bill relating to Trademark. They are:
(1) the criminal and civil remedies for trademark infringement,
(2) the requirement for the issuance of prior notice in order to commence civil and
criminal procedures against an act of trademark infringement,
(3) entitlement of a sole import agent to stand as a plaintiff in civil litigation,
(4) acts of producing, importing, selling and importing goods with Marks 1 through 9,
(5) general criteria for judging the similarity of trademarks,
(6) the effect of the global profile of trademark on the judgment of the trademark,
(7) the effect of the use of trademark "DolfiN" instead of the registered trademark
"DolfiN"
(8) the effect of the admission regarding the dissimilaritywith infringing mark on
trademark application,
(9) right of unregistered trademark right for legal action.21. Remedies (Answer for Issue No (1)
In Myanmar, bothCriminal proceeding and Civil Proceeding can be taken against the
trademark infringement under the existing Laws of Myanmar. Under the provisions of Section
478, 480, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487 to 488 of the existing Myanmar Penal Code1
, Criminal
proceeding can be taken, and under s. 54 of the existing Specific Relief Act2
and s. 9 of the
Civil Procedure Code3
, the civil proceeding can be taken. In doing so, these two proceedings
are to be taken separately.
In the same way, under the Section 35 (a) of new Myanmar Trademark Bill4
, both
Criminal and Civil Proceeding can be taken against the trademark infringement. In taking so,
these two proceedings are to be taken separately.
There are only few criminal cases and civil cases for trademark infringement. The
Number of cases is still being collected and will be submitted later.
2. Requirements for commencing Civil litigation or Criminal prosecution
(Answer for Issue No (2)
There is no trade mark registration legislation in Myanmar. Criminal proceeding and
Civil Proceeding against the trademark infringement are conducted under the existing Civil or
Criminal Procedure Code. According to these Codes, there is no requirement to issue prior
public notice or warning in order to commence the litigation or prosecution for infringing
trademark.
As there is no trademark law in Myanmar, there was no registration facility until 1962.
But, as the disputes as to such right had increased steadily, the government assigned Inspector
General and his Registration Office of Deeds and Assurances under Ministry of Agriculture to do
as a registration office for trademarks in accordance with the s. 18 (f) of the Registration Act in
1962. Therefore, the Inspector General and his Registration Office of Deeds and Assuranceshad
issued Direction No. 13/ 1962 to make the registration of the trademark.
Under this Direction, a practice has developed by which the person purporting to be the
trade mark owner can make a Declaration of Ownership and register the declaration with the
office of the Registrar of Deeds. Once the declaration is registered, mostly, a Cautionary Notice
is published in a daily English language newspaper to be warning people not to infringe the trade
mark. In the case of infringement, the registered declaration and the cautionary notice serve to
establish prima facie evidence for ‘use’ of the trade mark in Myanmar.
1. See the Annex (1)
2. See the Annex (2)
3. See the Annex (3)
4. "s. 35 The right owner shall, without affecting the provisions in sections 36 and 37:
(a) Enjoy the following as an exclusive right:
i. ++++
ii. the right to pursue criminal action, civil action or both against those who infringe
on the rights relating to a registered mark,"
iii. +++"3Under the Section 34 of new Myanmar Trademark Bill5
, a trademark is required to be
registered to get protection, but no need to issue prior public notice or warning for the purpose of
commencing civil litigation or criminal prosecution for trademark infringement.
3. Entitlement to litigate a suit by a sole import agent (Answer for Issue No (3)
Under existing laws, there is no provision that empowers a sole import agent to stand as a
plaintiff in civil litigation. However, in the case of "Gasper & Co v. Leong Chye & Co"6
, a sole
import agent was entitled to stand as a plaintiff in civil litigation to demand injunction and/or
damages on the grounds of infringement of the trademark.
Under the new Myanmar Trademark Bill, it is not clear that a sole import agent was
entitled to stand as a plaintiff in such cases.
4. Infringements (Answer for Issue No (4)
Under section 478, 480, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487 to 488 of the existing Penal Code7
, each
of Bonito’s acts of producing, possessing and selling goods with counterfeiting marks
constitute the infringement of the trademark. And also under the Custom Act and Sea Custom
Act, importing and exporting such goods constitute the infringement of the trademark. Under
S. 9 of the existing Civil Procedure Code8
and S. 54 of the existing Specific Relief Act9
, Tuna
also has the right to take civil litigations for injunctions, damages and compensations against
Bonito’s acts.
Under section 86 of the new Myanmar Trademark Bill10
, each of Bonito’s acts of
producing, selling, importing and exporting goods with counterfeiting marks constitute the
criminal infringement.
It is not clear that each of Bonito’s acts of producing and selling goods with
counterfeiting marks constitutes civil infringements under this new Bill.
However, Bonito’s acts of producing, selling and importing may be inferred to constitute
civil infringement under Chapter 11 of the Bill, and Bonito’s acts of exporting constitute
infringement under s. 49 (b) of the Bill.
Under s.35 of the Bill, it is clear that Tuna has the right to take both Civil and Criminal
Action. If we read it along with the provision of S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and S. 54 of the
Specific Relief Act, Tuna will have the right to take civil litigations for injunctions, damages and
compensation against Bonito’s acts.
5. "If the owner of a mark complies with Chapter X, he shall enjoy the rights, related to a registered mark,
stipulated in this chapter for the term of the registration."
6. Indian Law Report (1934) Vol 12, page 534
7. See the Annex (1)
8. See the Annex (3)
9. See the Annex (2)
10. See Annex (4)45. General criteria for the similarity of trademark (Answer for Issue No (5)
Under the existing laws of Myanmar, there is no expressed provision in Civil Procedure
Code which sets the general criteria for judging the similarity of trademarks.
However, there is the definition of counterfeiting in s. 28 of Myanmar Penal Code. Under
the case-laws of Myanmar, there have general criteria for judging the similarity of trademarks,
and it is sufficient to constitute a colorable imitation if there is similarity between the two marks,
which could, in the circumstances of a particular case, be considered to be calculated to deceive
the class of persons for whom goods are ordinarily or primarily intended.
In Myanmar, general criteria for the similarity of the trademark by the court rulings
are as follows:
· Two marks at issue need not be identical, similarity through slightly different
between them is sufficient to claim infringement11
· the translation of the meaning of trademark "Nanyang" "Elepant" "Elephant Star"
in English version having the same meaning as "Nanyang Sin Kyal" ( )
as a similar or identical of the Elephant" trademark in Myanmar language12
· "Taung Gyi Mauk Mai" is a trademark that includes a device for natural
cosmetics. A different mark "Shan Maunk Mai" using similar get-up, size of plastic container
and instruction was launched on the market is reasonable ground for granting temporary
injunction13
· An owner of a trademark in respect of a particular commodity has no right to
prohibit or prevent other person from the use of such mark in connection with goods of totally
different character."14
· It is not necessary in order to constitute a colorable imitation that two marks
should be similar in every particular, but it will be sufficient in law to constitute a colorable
imitation if there exists such similarity between the two marks which could lead to
consumers‟deception."15
There are no general criteria for judging the similarity of trademarks under the new
Myanmar Trademark Bill, However, Myanmar Courts will follow and decide the trademark
infringement cases by using general criteria for judging the similarity of trademarks, which
are set by the above-mentioned case-laws.
11. U MaungMaung (a) Alibi Vs. DawKhin Than Myint 1975 BLR 72
12. Nanyang Industry Ltd Vs Gold Asia Rubber Manufacturing, Special Civil Appeal Case No. 48, (Special
Bench –Three Judges Sitting), Supreme Court (Yangon), 2005
13. U Tin Lett (a) U Sai Lett and one Vs. U KyawNyein, Year 2000, Special Civil Appeal Case No. 23 (Special
Bench), Yangon, 2001 BLR -128
14. John Walkers Vs. U Than Shwe 1968 BLR 73
15. Gaw Shan Soot Vs E.C Madah (1952, BLR, 136 (H.C)5To decide whether there is identical or similarity between the registered mark and the
infringed one from 1 to 9, the court looks at the appearance, pronunciation, concept (meaning) of
these marks and the intention of the infringer. According to the discussions in Myanmar, the
conclusions can be drawn as follows. it is found out that there are infringements in the case of
Mark (1) and (2), and the remaining (7) marks cannot be deemed to infringe Tuna’s rights.MarkNo.
appearance pronunciation concept (meaning) Intention Conclus-ion1 O O ? O O
2 O O ? O O
3 ×ばつ O ? ×ばつ ×ばつ
4 ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ
5 ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ
6 ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ
7 ×ばつ O ×ばつ/O if consumer
know definition×ばつ/O ×ばつ/O
8 ×ばつ ×ばつ/O (if can
pronounce)
O ×ばつ ×ばつ
9 O (if other words
are small)×ばつ ×ばつ ×ばつ/O ×ばつ/O
6. Global profile of the trade mark (Answer for Issue No (6)
There is neither provision nor case-law to protect the Well-known marks in Myanmar.
The global profile does not affect the judgment on the similarity of the trademark.
But, under the existing laws and case-laws of Myanmar, if the owner of global profile of
the trademark in this case uses it in Myanmar,it can affect the judgment on the similarity of
the trademark.
In taking action against an infringer, a legitimate trademark owner must demonstrate
actual use of the trademark to provethat he is the legitimate trademark owner and has a better
right over the mark in Myanmar.
In order to demonstrate actual use, a trademark owner must sell and distribute products
bearing the trademark on its own or via a distributor. This may, however, prove to be difficult,
because the legitimate trademark owner may not be able to provide evidence claiming a better
right over the alleged infringer for products which are not related to their business.
Under section 35 (a) (3) and 76 (b) of the new Myanmar Trademark Bill16
, there are
protections for the Well-known marks in Myanmar.
16. See Annex (5)6The Draft Trademark Law recognizes the well-known mark in Myanmar. It defines
that a well-known mark is a mark being well-known in the Republic of the Union of Myanmar in
accordance with the stipulated standard.
According to s. 101 of this Bill, this standard may be determined by the responsible Union
Ministry to be well-known mark by the relevant sector of the public in the Union of Myanmar in
respect of the type of goods or services to which the mark applies. But this recognition is subject
to the right of well-known mark which is not registered in Myanmar.
7. Cancellation of Non-use Trademark (Answers for Issue No. 7 (1) and 7 (2)
Regarding the Issue No. 7 (1), there is no expressed provision in the existing lawsor
rulingswhich prescribe that using a mark in a different design without modifying the special
characteristics of the registered mark is or amounts to non-use of the registered one.
Under s. 49 (b) (1) of the new Bill17
, using a mark in a different design with registered
one is or amounts to using a registered mark.
Regarding theIssue No. 7 (2), non-use of the trademark can affect on the judgment
on the similarity or infringement of it.
Under the case-laws of Myanmar, usage of a mark in Myanmar is precondition for the
protection, and invalidation of the trade-mark right may be possibleon the grounds of non-use.
A trademark owner could lose his right if he did not use or abandon his trademark,
but there was no provision or rulings limiting the exact duration of non-use or
abandonment of the trademark18.There is no clear current practice for cancellation of non-use trademark.Non-use
cancellation will also be available under the new Bill. The Registrar may cancel the
registration of a mark if the trademark owner fails to use the mark for three consecutive
years, commencing from the date of application, without sufficient justification19.8. The effect of statement during the trademark registration process
(Answers for Issue No. 8)
There is no expressed provision in the existing laws and case-laws that Tuna’s
argument for the registration of its mark, which has admitted the dissimilarity with the
mark of "Dolphin" in the application, can be used as evidence in the court proceedings.
Therefore, it is not clear that Tuna’s argumentwhich has admitted the dissimilarity with the mark
of "Dolphin" affect the judgment on the similarity in the trademark infringement case although
there are estopple provisions in Myanmar Evidence Act.
17. See Annex (6)
18. Aung Gun Chun (a) Mg Chun and two v. B.Y.C Soap Factory, 1966, B.L.R, (C.C) 1038,
19. See Annex (7)7Under S. 95 of the new Trademark Bill20
, Tuna’s argument at the time of applying for
the registration of its trademark that it was not similar to "Dolphin" (as explained in 2) above)
can be proved.
So, the argument of Tuna at the time of applying for the registration of its trademark that it
was not similar to "Dolphin" may affect the judgment of similarity between the marks in this
case.
9. Right of the owner of unregistered mark (Answers for Issue No. 9)
As we explained in the answers for Issue No (2), there is no requirement to register the
relevant trademark in order to take civil litigation or criminal prosecution for trademark
infringements under the existing laws and case-laws of Myanmar.
Therefore, Tuna is entitled to take any legal actions including actions under the
Custom Act, Sea Custom Act and Myanmar Merchandising Marks Act against Bonito if and
when Tuna uses its mark in Myanmar.
Now it is required to register the relevant trademark under S.35 of the new
Trademark Bill21
, and Tuna, if its mark is not well-known andnot registered in Myanmar, is
not entitled to take any legal actions.
However, if Tuna’s mark is a well-known and registered mark in Myanmar, Tuna has
the right to prevent the use of a mark identical or similar to a well-known, registered mark for
different goods or services under S. 35 (a) (3) of the new Trademark Bill22
. And also, Tuna is
able to take an action under S. 17 and 18 of the Competition Law of Myanmar23.And if Tuna’s mark is a well-known but not registered mark in Myanmar, Tuna has
the right to prevent the use of a mark identical or similar to its well-knownmark for identical or
similar goods or services under S. 76 (b) of the new Trademark Bill24.20. See Annex (8)
21. See Annex (6)
22. See Annex (6)
23. See Annex (9)
24. See Annex (6)11. Annex (1):Section 478, 480, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487 to 488 of the existing Myanmar Penal Code
(a) Section 478
"A mark used for denoting that goods are the manufacture or merchandise of a particular person is
called a trademark."
(b) Section 480
"Whoever marks any goods or any case, package or other receptacle containing goods, or uses any
case, package or other receptacle with any mark thereon, in a manner reasonably calculated to cause
it to be believed that the goods so marked, or any goods contained in any such receptacle so marked,
are the manufacture or merchandise of a person whose manufacture or merchandise they are not, is
said to use a false trade mark."
(c) Section 482
"Whoever uses any false mark or any false property mark shall, unless he proves that he acted
without intent to defraud, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
(d) Section 483
"Whoever counterfeits any trademark or property mark used by any other person shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both"
(e) Section 485
"Whoever makes or has in his possession any die, plate or other instrument for the purpose of
counterfeiting a trade mark, or property mark, or has in his possession a trade mark or property mark
for the purpose of denoting that any goods are the manufacture or merchandise of a person whose
manufacture or merchandise they are not, or that they belong to a person to whom they do not belong,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both."
(f) Section 486
"Whoever sells, or exposes, or has in possession for sale or any purpose of trade or manufacture,
any goods or things with a counterfeit trade mark or property mark affixed to or impressed upon the
same or to or upon any case, package or other receptacle in which such goods are contained, shall,
unless he proves –
(a) that, having taken all reasonable precautions against committing an offence against this section, he
had at the time of the commission of the alleged offence no reason to suspect the genuineness of the
mark, and
(b) that, on demand made by or on behalf of the prosecutor, he gave all the information in his power
with respect to the person from whom he obtained such goods or things, or
(c) that otherwise he had acted innocently,
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine, or with both.
(g) Section 487
Whoever makes any false mark upon any case, package or other receptacle containing goods, in a
manner reasonably calculated to cause any public servant or any other person to believe that such
receptacle contains goods which it does not contain, or that it does not contain goods which it does
contain, or that the goods contained in such receptacle are of a nature or quality different from the real
nature or quality thereof, shall, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both
(h) Section 4882Whoever makes use of any such false mark in any manner prohibited by the last foregoing section
shall unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punished as if he had committed an
offence against that section.
2. Annex (2):S. 54 of the existing Specific Relief Act
"Subject to the other provisions contained in, or referred to by, this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may
be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor of the applicant, whether expressly or
by implication. When such obligation arises from contract the Court shall be guided by the rules and
provisions contained in Chapter (ii) of this Act. When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the
plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of property, the Court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following
cases (namely):-
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the
invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief;
(d) where it is probable that pecuniary compensation cannot be got for the invasion;
(e) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
・Explanation - For the purpose of this section a trademark is property".
Illustrations
(w) A improperly uses the trademark of B. B may obtain an injunction to restrain the user, provided
that B’s use of the trademark is honest.
3. Annex (3):S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code
The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil
nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation- A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature,
notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or
ceremonies.
4. Annex (4):Section 86 of the new Myanmar Trademark Bill
Whoever deliberately commits the following offences or abets the offender for commercial purposes,
without the consent of the trademark owner, shall be punished with a prison sentence of no more than
three (3) years, a fine not exceeding five million (5,000,000) kyats, or both:
(a) counterfeiting a trademark;
(b) using a counterfeit trademark for goods or services;
(c) retaining any substance or equipment materially used to make a counterfeit trademark or to apply
use a counterfeit trademark in goods;
(d) selling and distributing goods using the counterfeit trademark; or
(e) importing or exporting goods using the counterfeit trademark into or from Myanmar.
5. Annex (5):section 35 (a) (3) and 76 (b) of the new Myanmar Trademark Bill
(a) Section 35 (a) (3) of the new Myanmar Trademark Bill
The right owner shall, without affecting the provisions in sections 36 and 37:
(a) Enjoy the following as an exclusive right:
i. ++++
ii. the right to pursue either criminal action, civil action or both against those who
breach infringe on the rights relating to a registered mark,"
iii. in any of the following events, the right to prevent the use of a mark identical
or similar to a well-known, registered mark for different goods or services,
without the consent of owner of the mark, in the course of trade:
1. if it indicates that there is a connection between the owner of a well-known,
registered mark and the goods or services which use the mark;32. if it is harmful to the interests of owner of said mark.
(b) Section 76 (b) of the new Myanmar Trademark Bill
The court:
(a) shall presume that a mark protected under this Law is violated if any person who is not the right
owner of the mark exercises any right under section 35 in Myanmar without the consent of the owner.
(b) shall presume that the use, without consent, of an identical or similar well-known mark which is
not registered for identical or similar goods or services shall be deemed as misleading the public.
6. Annex (6):S. 49 (b) (1) of the new Myanmar Trademark Bill
S.49 (a) ++++
(b) The use of marks according to subsection (a) includes the following:
(i) use in a different design without modifying the special characteristics of the
registered mark;
7. Annex (7):S. 49 (a) (1) of the new Myanmar Trademark Bill
(a) Upon an application by a related person, the Registrar must cancel the registration if a
registered mark is found to meet any of the following conditions:
(i) Goods or services related to the registered mark are not used within three (3) years from
the date of registration in the Department and there is no sufficient reason for the failure
to use the said mark;
8. Annex (8) :S. 95 of the new Trademark Bill
95. A copy of the registration certificate of a mark and other documents, which are signed, sealed
and certified by the registrar, are allowed to be submitted to the relevant courts as evidence.
9. Annex (9):S. 17 and 18 of the Competition Law of Myanmar
(a) S.17 of the Competition Law of Myanmar
The acts done for the purposes of unfair competition under this Law include as follows
(a) Misleading of consumers,
(b) Disclosing business secrets,
(c) Coercing of businessmen to each other,
(d) Defaming of the reputation of another business,
(e) Disturbing the operation of another business;
(f) Advertising and sale promotion for the purpose of unfair competition,
(g) Discriminating among businessmen,
(h) Selling goods at price lesser than production cost or post, insurance and freight (CIF) in the market,
(i) Abusing influence of his business, inducing or instigating of a party under contract with other
businesses to breach the contract,
(j) Exercising unfair competitive act in competition stipulated by the commission for the interests of
consumers when necessary.
(b) S.18 of the Competition Law of Myanmar
No businessman shall carry out any of the following acts which mislead the consumers;
(a) Carrying out with intention to compete with the use of deceptive information which mislead
the legally registered name of goods, business slogan, logo, packaging, geographical
indication and other elements,
(b) Carrying out business such as production of goods and services by using the information
contained in sub-section (a).