Landmark Myanmar Competition Commission Decision Targets Deceptive Branding

August 7, 2024

Landmark Myanmar Competition Commission Decision Targets Deceptive Branding

A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition.

Background

The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market.

In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information.

Legal Proceedings

After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes.

Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties.

Commission’s Decision

After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to:

Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing similar color and design themes to the Thai company’s products.
Change their packaging design to avoid any similarity with the Thai company’s products.

Significance of the Ruling

This case marks a significant development in Myanmar’s approach to competition law. It demonstrates the Competition Commission’s willingness to address unfair competition practices that go beyond traditional antitrust concerns, extending to issues of deceptive marketing and brand imitation.

The ruling sets a precedent that could have far-reaching implications for both local and international businesses operating in Myanmar. It signals that the Commission is prepared to take action against unfair competition practices, even when they involve complex issues of brand identity and packaging design.

Conclusion

This landmark case at the Myanmar Competition Commission highlights the evolving nature of competition law in the country. It underscores the importance for businesses to be aware of and comply with fair competition practices, not just in pricing and market share, but also in branding and marketing strategies. As Myanmar’s business landscape continues to develop, such rulings will play a crucial role in shaping a fair and competitive market environment.

Related Professionals

Yuwadee Thean-ngarm

Partner and Director, Myanmar

Thailand, Myanmar,

+95 9 772 440 002

Email

Nwe Oo

Myanmar

+95 9 772 440 001

Email

Kyaw Min Tun

Myanmar

+95 9 772 440 001

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

December 20, 2024

IP Holding Companies: Singapore vs. Hong Kong

With intellectual property playing an ever-increasing role in economic development, the need to harness, promote, and protect ASEAN innovation remains urgent as integration progresses. Among its objectives, the ASEAN Economic Community aims to transform the region into a hub of innovation and competitiveness and ensure that the region remains an active participant in the international IP community. With ASEAN member states increasing IP generation and further committing to global IP regimes, the region is increasingly looking toward sophisticated IP ownership and holding structures. IP Holding Companies ASEAN-based companies continue to centralize ownership of their IP assets in offshore holding and licensing vehicles—an approach multinational companies headquartered elsewhere have been using for a number of years. IP-intensive companies look to locate their IP portfolios in low-tax jurisdictions with strong IP registration and protection laws. The company then licenses the IP to operating companies in the group or to third-party licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors, and other partners in return for royalties or license fees. These special-purpose vehicles are typically referred to as IP holding companies. IP holding companies are popular because they can help corporations minimize tax, gain tax benefits or concessions, protect IP from bankruptcy or other claims against the parent company, and focus management attention on the IP portfolio as an income generator. Tax and IP Holding Companies Tax is the primary reason most companies park their IP in separate IP holding vehicles. Sometimes, companies choose to establish their IP holding company in a no-tax, low-tax, or preferred-tax jurisdiction close to their home country. The selected jurisdiction should also be a country with a large and well-established tax treaty network. Double taxation treaties are key considerations in jurisdiction shopping. If the IP assets need to be pledged as security for future borrowings or if they are to be included

December 20, 2024

Thailand Introduces Fast-Track Option for Patent Examination of Green Inventions

Closing out the year, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has gifted green innovators with a chance to take a faster route for examining their patent and petty patent applications under the “Target Patent Fast-Track” program. This route prioritizes environmentally sustainable inventions, and significantly accelerates the preliminary and substantive examinations of selected applications at no additional official fee. The program was publicly announced on December 2, 2024, in the DIP Notification on the Expansion of Technological Fields under the Target Patent Fast-Track Program, which took effect on December 15, 2024. The expedited process is open to both Thai and foreign applicants, provided the requirements in the notification are met. Under the fast-track program, a first office action for qualifying applications can be expected within 6 months during the preliminary examination stage. These applications will also be issued a first office action within just 12 months in the substantive examination period after publication. The DIP begins accepting formal requests for selection to participate in the program from January 1, 2025, onward. Each applicant can submit only one application per fast-track patent program per month, as selected applications cannot belong to the same applicant. No more than 10 applications per month will be chosen to participate in the fast-track route, with the results being announced on the 5th of every following month. To be eligible for selection, applications must comply with all the fast-track requirements specified in the recent DIP notification, particularly: The patent or petty patent application must have been filed with the DIP for at least three months, or a substantive examination request has already been filed in the case of patent applications. Each application must contain no more than 10 claims throughout its participation in the program. The application must be electronically filed in Thailand first or through

December 18, 2024

The EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement

The EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement is drawing a lot of interest as the fourth round recently concluded in Bangkok. Despite negotiations starting in 2013, there was a ten-year pause before we saw the first round of negotiations end in September 2023. The initial plan was for four rounds of negotiations, with the free trade agreement (FTA) finalized in 2025. However, following the fourth round it is clear that the negotiations are still ongoing. Now, the question is: how much closer are the EU and Thailand to concluding their FTA? The EU initially submitted 13 chapter proposals for the FTA, followed by a further 12, and these became the springboard for the negotiations. Given the complexity of agreeing on an accord of this size, there will probably be additional proposals submitted in 2025. These chapters have seen sector-specific negotiation groups formed, and although it has been difficult to truly gauge the status, steady progress has been made in each. Arguably one of the biggest points of discussion pertains to the customs process for imports and exports. Both sides aim to align their practices in relation to rules of origin and custom rates, with preferential tariff treatments offered to goods originating from Thailand and the EU, as well as talks of eliminating or reducing relevant taxes. The desire for a faster customs clearance can be seen in EU proposals for clearance of goods on arrival. Although there has been progress in agreeing to a more simplified customs process, more work needs to be done before we hear news of the agreed-upon fees and charges, or confirmation of what goods would be allowed temporary admission. When we consider customs clearance, it is important to also examine what this FTA could mean for rightsholders. One piece of good news is that it appears

December 9, 2024

Protection of New Plant Varieties in Cambodia

Cambodia’s Law on Seed Management and Plant Breeder’s Rights was enacted in 2008, but it was not until recently that new plant varieties could successfully be registered for protection in the country. Although the law has been in place for some time, recent developments confirmed the application process and a schedule of charges for the registration of new plant varieties. With these developments, breeders have been able to register their new plant varieties in Cambodia since March 1, 2024. Applicants for new plant variety protection must be Cambodian nationals, foreign nationals domiciled in Cambodia, or permanent residents of either a country that is a contracting party to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Convention or a country with which Cambodia has signed a memorandum of understanding on plant variety protection. Applicants can also claim a priority date from the first application for the same plant variety filed in any contracting party of the UPOV Convention within 12 months of the earliest application’s filing date. To be eligible for protection, new plant varieties must satisfy the following criteria: Novelty: A variety is considered “new” if, at the date of filing the application for new plant variety protection, it has not been sold, marketed, or otherwise disposed of others—by or with the consent of the breeder—for more than: One year for any plant variety in Cambodia; Six years for trees and vines or four years for all other plant varieties in countries besides Cambodia. Distinctiveness: A variety must be clearly distinguishable from any other existing varieties. Uniformity: A variety must be sufficiently uniform in its relevant characteristics. Stability: A variety must remain unchanged in its essential characteristics at the end of each cycle of propagation and in each generation. The last three criteria are often

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

Industries

Practices

August 7, 2024