《缅甸最终颁布商标法》(2018)

NO&T Asia Legal Review

《NO&T亚洲法律评论》

(Chinese and English are unofficial translation)

（中英文参考译本）

February, 2019 No.8

2019年2月，第8期

※使用申明：英文文本由pintas-ip.com提供，中文译本系陕西省知识产权保护中心组织翻译；本译本仅供参考。

※版权申明：中文译本©版权归陕西省知识产权保护中心所有，如引用请标明出处。

※译制日期：2023年11月

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February, 2019 No.8

2019年2月，第8期

This issue covers the following topics:

本期包括以下专题内容：

	MALAYSIA’S CORPORATE LIABILITY UNDER THE MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ACT 2009 EFFECTIVE 1ST JUNE 2020 – ADEQUATE PROCEDURES GUIDELINES ISSUED 2009年《马来西亚反贪污委员会法案》（于2020年6月1日生效）中规定的马来西亚企业责任——发布的适当程序准则	(Aizad Bin Abul Khair)
	SINGAPORE – ANTI-SUIT/ ANTI-ENFORCEMENT RELIEF WHERE A FOREIGN JUDGMENT IS OBTAINED IN BREACH OF AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT 新加坡——反诉/反执行救济，其中规定若违反仲裁协议，则执行外国判决	(Claire Chong)
	TRADEMARK LAW FINALLY ENACTED IN MYANMAR 缅甸最终制定的《商标法》	(Win Shwe Yi Htun)

 

MALAYSIA’S CORPORATE LIABILITY UNDER THE MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ACT 2009 EFFECTIVE 1ST JUNE 2020 – ADEQUATE PROCEDURES GUIDELINES ISSUED 2009年《马来西亚反贪污委员会法案》（于2020年6月1日生效）中规定的马来西亚企业责任——发布的适当程序准则

マレーシアでは2018年に反汚職委員会法が改正されて両罰規定が導入され、同年末の首相演説の中で、2020年6月1日より同規定が施行されることが公表された。改正法では、法人が汚職の防止に向けた「十分な」手続を取っていた場合には両罰規定の適用を免れる旨の例外規定が置かれているところ、今般その「十分な」手続とは何かについて新たなガイドラインが制定されたことから、その具体的な内容について紹介する。

Background

背景

As previously stated in our August 2018 Edition of the NO&T Asia Legal Review, Section 17 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Bill 2018 (“Bill”) which seeks to introduce the concept of corporate liability under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC Act”) has not yet come into force.

正如我律所在《NO&T亚洲法律评论》（2018年8月版）中所述， 2018年《马来西亚反贪污委员会（修订）法案》(“法案”)中第17条尚未生效，该法案旨在根据2009年《马来西亚反贪污委员会法案》）“《MACC法案》”）介绍企业责任的概念。

In a speech delivered on 10 December 2018, the Prime Minister of Malaysia announced that the corporate liability amendments to the MACC Act will come into force on June 1st, 2020. The Prime Minister’s Department has also issued the Guidelines on Adequate Procedures (“Guideline”) pursuant to Section 17A(5) of the MACC Act.

马来西亚总理于2018年12月10日发表演讲宣布，《MACC法案》中有关企业责任的修正案将于2020年6月1日生效。同时，马来西亚总理署还根据《MACC法案》第17A（5）条发布了适当程序准则（“准则”）。

Defense of Adequate Procedures

适当程序辩护

To recap, the main purpose of the Bill is to introduce a wide reaching corporate liability provision under Section 17A. It imposes strict liability on commercial organizations, in that organizations can be held liable regardless of whether they had actual knowledge of the corrupt actions of its associated persons. The only exception is if, pursuant to Section 17A(4) of the MACC Act, the commercial organization could prove that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent such associated persons from carrying out the corrupt conduct, then it can amount to a defense.

总的来说，该法案旨在根据第17A条推行一项影响广泛的企业责任规定。该法案中针对商业组织规定了严格的责任，即无论这些组织是否实际知悉其有关人士的贪污行为，均可以对其追究责任。唯一的例外情况是，根据《MACC法案》第17A（4）条，如果商业组织能够证明其已制定适当的程序，预防该等相关人士出现贪污行为，则可构成辩护。

In this regard, the Guideline aims to assist commercial organizations to employ fundamental measures to minimize the risk of corruption and to understand what adequate procedures should be implemented to prevent the occurrence of corrupt practices in their business activities.

就这一点而言，该准则旨在协助商业组织采取基本措施，尽量降低贪污风险，并了解应采取哪些适当程序，防止在商业活动中出现贪污行为。

Five Guiding Principles for Adequate Procedures - T.R.U.S.T.

适当程序的五项指导原则——T.R.U.S.T.

The Guideline outlines the five guiding principles of T.R.U.S.T. and they are summarized as follows:

该准则中概述了T.R.U.S.T.五项指导原则，总结如下：

1. Top Level Commitment:
2. 高层管理人员的责任承担：

This first principle refers to the responsibility of top level management to ensure that the commercial organization essentially practices the highest level of integrity and ethics. The top level management must be able to provide assurance to its stakeholders, both internal and external, that the commercial organization is in compliance with its policies and regulatory requirements and it should carry out among others, the following:

第一项原则为高层管理人员的责任，旨在确保商业组织实质上遵循最高的诚信和道德水平。高层管理人员须能够向内外部利益相关者保证，商业组织遵守其政策和法规要求，并同时应执行以下内容：

(a) establish, maintain and periodically review its anti-corruption compliance program;

（a）建立、维护并定期审查其反贪污合规计划；

(b) issue instructions on communicating its anti-corruption policies and commitments to both internal and external parties;

（b）针对向内外各方传达其反贪污政策和承诺事宜发出指示；

(c) encourage the use of reporting (whistleblowing) channels for the reporting of any suspected or real corruption incidents or inconsistency with its policies; and

（c）鼓励通过报告（举报）渠道上报任何涉嫌或实际贪污事件，或违反其政策的情况；及

(d) assign and adequately resource a competent person or function (compliance officer) to be responsible for anti-corruption compliance.

（d）指派适任人员或职能部门（合规官）负责反贪污合规工作，并为其提供充足的资源。

The Guideline also defines “top level management” to be a person who is the organization’s director, controller, officer or partner, or a person who is concerned in the management of its affairs. This is a far reaching definition and can be imposed on a wide range of persons managing a commercial organization.

该准则中将“高层管理人员”定义为该类组织的董事、总监、高级管理人员或合伙人，或管理该类组织事务的相关人员。此项定义意义深远，适用于负责商业组织管理的各人员。

2. Risk Assessment:

2.风险评估：

This second principle recommends that a comprehensive risk assessment is done every three years, with intermittent assessment conducted when necessary. The assessment may include:

第二项原则为建议每三年开展一次综合风险评估，必要时开展间歇性评估。评估内容可包括：

(a) opportunities for corruption and fraud activities resulting from weaknesses in the organization’s governance framework and internal systems / procedures;

（a）因组织治理框架和内部系统/程序薄弱导致发生贪污和欺诈活动的机会；

(b) business activities in countries or sectors that pose a higher corruption risk; and

（b）在存在较高贪污风险的国家或行业开展的商业活动；及

(c) relationships with third parties in its supply chain (e.g. agents, vendors, contractors and suppliers) which are likely to expose the commercial organization to corruption.

（c）与供应链中第三方（如代理人、供货商、承包商和供应商）的关系，这些第三方有可能给商业组织带来贪污风险。

3. Undertake Control Measures:

3.采取控制措施：

Under the third principle, commercial organizations should put in place appropriate controls and contingency measures that are reasonable and proportionate to the nature and size of the organization. These should include, among others:

根据第三项原则，商业组织应采取适当的控制和应急措施，这些措施需合理，并与组织的性质和规模相适配。所述措施包括但不限于：

(a) Due Diligence – Commercial organizations should establish key considerations and criteria for conducting due diligence on any relevant parties or personnel prior to entering into any formalized relationships; and

（a）尽职调查——商业组织应在建立任何正式关系之前，确定关键考虑因素和标准，以对任何相关方或人员开展尽职调查。

(b) Reporting Channel – Commercial organizations should establish an accessible and confidential reporting channel, encourage persons to report, in good faith, any suspected, attempted or actual corruption; establish a secure information management system to ensure confidentiality of the whistleblower, and prohibit retaliation against those who make reports in good faith.

（b）报告渠道——商业组织应建立方便及保密的报告渠道，鼓励人员诚信举报任何涉嫌、企图或实际已发生的贪污行为；建立安全的信息管理制度，确保为举报者保密，并禁止对诚信举报之人进行报复。

4. Systematic Review, Monitoring and Enforcement:

4.系统评审、监督和执行：

Under this fourth principle, the top level management should ensure that regular reviews are conducted to assess the performance, efficiency and effectiveness of its anti-corruption program. Such reviews may take the form of an internal audit or an audit carried out by an external party. For the foregoing purpose, the commercial organization is to consider, among others, an external audit (e.g. MS ISO 37001 auditors) by a qualified and independent third party at least once every three years to obtain assurance that the commercial organization is operating in compliance with its policies and procedures in relation to corruption.

根据第四项原则，高层管理人员应确保定期进行评审，评估其反贪污计划的执行情况、效率和效果。可采取内部审计或外部审计的形式进行评审。由于上述原因，商业组织还应考虑由合格的独立第三方（例如MS ISO 37001审计师）至少每三年开展一次外部审计，确保商业组织的运作符合其贪污相关的政策和程序。

5. Training and Communication:

5.培训和传达：

Under this fifth principle, the commercial organization’s anti-corruption policy should be made publicly available and communicated to all personnel and business associates. The commercial organization should provide its employees and business associates with adequate training to ensure thorough understanding of the commercial organization’s anti-corruption position.

根据第五项原则，商业组织的反贪污政策应公开，并传达给所有人员和商业伙伴。商业组织应向其雇员和商业伙伴提供充分的培训，确保他们彻底了解商业组织的反贪污立场。

Conclusion

结论

The Guideline may be used as a reference point for any anti-corruption policies, procedures and control that a commercial organization may choose to implement but it is not, however, intended to be prescriptive in nature. The principles therein should be applied practically, in proportion to the scale, nature, industry, risk and complexity of the commercial organization.

商业组织选择实施任何反贪污政策、程序和控制可以以该准则为参考，但该准则本质上是规范性文件。应实际应用上述原则，与商业组织的规模、性质、行业、风险和复杂程度相称。

With the enforcement of Section 17A is set for June 1st, 2020, commercial organizations should have ample time to prepare themselves for the new obligations under the said Section.

由于第17A条于2020年6月1日生效，商业组织应有充足的时间为履行该条规定的新义务做准备。

[Author]

【作者】

Aizad Bin Abul Khair (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Singapore LLP) Aizad Bin Abul Khair（長島·大野·常松法律事務所新加坡办公室） aizad_khair@noandt.com Aizad Bin Abul Khair is a Malaysian and UK qualified foreign attorney in the Singapore office. His areas of practice include mergers and acquisitions, equity capital markets, joint ventures and general corporate matters. Aizad has extensive experience working in Malaysian related matters and this includes sale and acquisition of private companies and businesses, listing and other equity capital raising on the Malaysian Stock Exchange, take-overs and corporate restructuring. <Profile text: 9pt> Aizad Bin Abul Khair是新加坡办公室一位合格的马来西亚和英国律师。其执业领域包括并购、股权资本市场、合资企业和一般公司事务。Aizad在马来西亚相关事务方面积累了大量的工作经验，其中包括出售和收购私营公司和企业，在马来西亚证券交易所进行上市和其他股权融资、收购和公司重组。<概述：9pt>

 

SINGAPORE – ANTI-SUIT/ ANTI-ENFORCEMENT RELIEF WHERE A FOREIGN JUDGMENT IS OBTAINED IN BREACH OF AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT 新加坡——反诉/反执行救济，其中规定若违反仲裁协议，则执行外国判决

シンガポールを仲裁地とする仲裁合意に違反して、一方当事者が外国において裁判を提起した場合、シンガポール裁判所が当該訴訟の差止命令を出すことができるかどうかについて初めて判断した判決が2019年2月12日に出された。本稿ではその内容について概説する。

Background

背景

In a recent decision dated 12 February 2019, the Singapore Court of Appeal in Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd [2019] SGCA 10 (“Sun Travels”) considered for the first time, as the supervisory court of a Singapore-seated arbitration, an application for injunctive relief against a party which obtained a foreign judgment in breach of an arbitration agreement.

在最近一项裁决中（2019年2月12日），新加坡上诉法院在Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd诉Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd【2019】SGCA 10（“Sun Travels”）一案中首次作为新加坡仲裁的监督法院，审议了一项申请，即对违反仲裁协议获得外国判决的一方实施禁令救济。

Summary

总结

Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd (“Sun”) and Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd (“Hilton”) entered into a resort management agreement (“Management Agreement”). In 2013, a dispute arising out of the agreement was referred to ICC arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in the Management Agreement. The seat of the arbitration is Singapore.

Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd（以下简称“Sun”）和Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd（以下简称“Hilton”）签订了一份度假管理协议（以下简称“管理协议”）。2013年，根据该管理协议所载仲裁协议，一项因该协议引起的争议提交给了ICC仲裁院。仲裁地为新加坡。

The arbitral tribunal issued two awards against Sun, including an order for damages in excess of USD 20 million to be paid to Hilton. Hilton sought to enforce the awards in the Maldives, but the application was ruled to have been brought in the incorrect division of the Maldivian courts. Sun commenced a separate civil action in the Maldives, in which it effectively sought to re-litigate the issues which had already been determined in the arbitration. The Maldivian court issued a judgment in favour of Sun. The findings reached by the Maldivian court were the opposite of those made by the arbitral tribunal (“Maldivian Judgment”).

仲裁庭对Sun做出了两项裁决，其中包括向Hilton支付超过2000万美元的赔偿金。Hilton试图申请在马尔代夫执行该项裁决，但该申请被裁定为未在马尔代夫法院适格分院提出。Sun在马尔代夫另行提起了民事诉讼，实际上试图针对仲裁中已经确定的问题重新提起诉讼。马尔代夫法院做出了有利于Sun的判决。马尔代夫法院的判决结果与仲裁庭（“马尔代夫判决”）的裁决结果相反。

Thereafter, Hilton sought enforcement of the awards in the Maldives once more before the appropriate court. This time, however, its application was refused on account of the Maldivian Judgment awarded in Sun’s favour.

随后，Hilton再次向马尔代夫适格法院申请执行裁决。然而，这一次，由于马尔代夫判决对Sun有利，其申请被拒绝。

Hilton then applied to the Singapore courts for relief, including a permanent anti-suit injunction to restrain Sun from commencing and/or proceeding with any court actions in the Maldives. Hilton’s appeal against the Maldivian Judgment was pending at the time of its application to the Singapore courts. The Singapore High Court did not grant an anti-suit injunction, but ordered that Sun was permanently restrained from relying on the Maldivian Judgment on the ground that the judgment was obtained in breach of the arbitration agreement between the parties (“Injunctive Order”).

Hilton随后向新加坡法院申请救济，包括申请一项永久反诉禁令，限制Sun在马尔代夫开始和/或进行任何法庭诉讼。Hilton针对马尔代夫判决的上诉在其向新加坡法院提出申请时仍在审理中。新加坡高等法院未做出反诉禁令，但下令永久限制Sun依赖马尔代夫判决，理由是该判决是在违反双方仲裁协议的情况下取得的（“禁令”）。

The Singapore Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the High Court in relation to the Injunctive Order in view of Hilton’s delay in applying to the Singapore court and the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of anti-enforcement relief.

鉴于Hilton延迟了向新加坡法院提出申请，并且无例外情况证明做出反执行救济是合理的，新加坡上诉法院推翻了高等法院就禁令做出的判决。

Anti-suit injunctions

反诉禁令

The Court of Appeal recalled its earlier decision in John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and others [2009] 4 SLR(R) 428, in which the court set out the following five factors to be considered when determining an application for an anti-suit injunction:

上诉法院回顾了其早先在John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others诉Trane US Inc and others一案【2009】4 SLR（R）428的判决，在该案中，法院在判决反诉禁令申请时列出了以下五个需要考虑的因素：

(i) whether the defendant is amendable to the jurisdiction of the Singapore court;

（i）被告是否受新加坡法院的管辖；

(ii) whether Singapore is the natural forum for resolution of the dispute between the parties;

（ii）新加坡是否是解决双方争议的自然法院；

(iii) whether the foreign court proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive to the plaintiff;

（iii）外国法院的诉讼是否对原告造成了无理取闹或压制行为；

(iv) whether the anti-suit injunction would cause any injustice to the defendant by depriving it of legitimate juridical advantages sought in the foreign proceedings; and

（iv）反诉禁令是否会因剥夺了被告在外国诉讼中申请的合法司法利益而对其造成不公正；及

(v) whether the commencement of foreign proceedings constitutes a breach of any agreement between the parties.

（v）提起外国诉讼是否违反双方间的任何协议。

The Court of Appeal noted that where a party commences foreign court proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement or exclusive jurisdiction clause, anti-suit injunctive relief would ordinarily be granted unless there are strong reasons not to do so. In such cases, there would be no need for a plaintiff to adduce additional evidence of unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendant. Importantly, however, the Court of Appeal reiterated that anti-suit relief must be “sought promptly and before the foreign proceedings are too far advanced”. As injunctive relief is equitable in nature, the Court upheld the principle that a party may lose its claim to such relief “by dilatoriness or other unconscionable conduct”.

上诉法院指出，如果一方违反仲裁协议或排他管辖权条款在外国法院提起诉讼，除非有充分的理由，否则通常会做出反诉禁令救济。在这种情况下，原告没有必要再提出被告有不合理行为的证据。然而，重要的是，上诉法院重申了，反诉救济必须“立即并在外国诉讼程序深入推进之前申请”。由于禁令救济本质上讲求公平性，法院维护一方可能因“拖延或其他不正当行为”而丧失对此类救济提出要求的原则。

Anti-enforcement injunctions

反执行禁令

The Court of Appeal in Sun Travels also considered the principles applicable to anti-enforcement injunctions, which are sought after a foreign judgment has been obtained. The Court held that more stringent requirements would apply to applications for anti-enforcement injunctions as compared to applications for anti-suit injunctions. This is in view of the drastic effect an anti-enforcement injunction can have, which “is comparable to nullifying the foreign judgment or stripping the judgment of any legal effect” when only the foreign court has the prerogative to set aside or vary its own judgments (emphasis in original).

在Sun Travels一案中，上诉法院还审议了适用于反执行禁令的原则，该反执行禁令在外国判决之后申请。法院认为，与申请反诉禁令相比，申请反执行禁令要求更严格。因为反执行禁令可能产生巨大的影响，当只有外国法院才有权撤销或改变自己的判决时（着重部分见原文），反执行禁令“相当于使外国判决无效或剥夺判决的任何法律效力”。

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that to qualify for such relief, an applicant must establish more than a breach of a legal right or vexatious or oppressive conduct by the defendant. Anti-enforcement injunctions may be granted in exceptional circumstances involving an element of unconscionability, such as fraud and the applicant’s lack of knowledge of the foreign proceedings until the issuance of the foreign court judgment. It follows that the court’s jurisdiction to grant anti-enforcement injunctions will be exercised sparingly and with greater caution than in cases involving anti-suit relief.

因此，上诉法院认为，为了有权获得这种救济，申请人必须证明被告违反了法定权利或有无理取闹或压迫行为。在涉及不合理因素的例外情况下，如欺诈和申请人在外国法院判决送达之前不了解外国法院诉讼程序，可做出反执行禁令。由此可见，与涉及做出反诉救济的案件相比，法院行使其管辖权做出反执行禁令将更保守、更谨慎。

Grounds of decision

判决理由

The Court of Appeal overturned the Injunctive Order on the following grounds.

上诉法院基于以下理由推翻禁令。

Hilton’s delay in applying to the Singapore court for anti-suit relief had enabled the Maldivian proceedings to reach an advanced stage. Hilton’s application was brought some nine months after Sun commenced a civil action in the Maldives, by which time various judgments had been issued by the Maldivian courts, with an appeal against the Maldivian Judgment pending.

Hilton延迟向新加坡法院申请反诉救济，致使马尔代夫诉讼程序深入推进。在Sun在马尔代夫提起民事诉讼约9个月后，Hilton提出了申请，此时，马尔代夫法院已经做出了各种判决，对马尔代夫判决的上诉正在审理中。

In the Court’s view, the fact that Hilton was making jurisdictional objections in the Maldivian courts did not excuse its delay in applying to the Singapore court for relief. The appropriate course of action was for Hilton to concurrently seek injunctive relief from the Singapore court, which it failed to do. Thus, there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of anti-enforcement injunction in Hilton’s favour.

法院认为，Hilton在马尔代夫法院提出管辖权异议这一事实不能成为其延迟向新加坡法院申请救济的理由。对Hilton来说，适当的做法是同时向新加坡法院申请禁令救济，但它没有这样做。因此，没有例外情况证明针对Hilton做出反执行禁令是合理的。

The Court of Appeal further considered that it was unclear how the Injunctive Order could be carried out in practice given the state of affairs in the ongoing Maldivian proceedings. Sun would invariably seek to rely on the Maldivian Judgment in the appellate proceedings before the Maldivian courts, but doing so would place it in apparent breach of the Injunctive Order.

上诉法院还认为，考虑到马尔代夫正在进行的诉讼程序的事态，如何在实践中执行禁令尚不清楚。在马尔代夫法院的上诉程序中，Sun总是依赖马尔代夫判决，但这样做明显违反禁令。

Conclusion

结论

Sun Travels illustrates the challenges a successful party to an arbitration may face at the enforcement stage, in particular where enforcement of the award is sought in the home jurisdiction of the unsuccessful party. Attempts by an unsuccessful party to re-litigate matters already determined in an arbitration could significantly hamper efforts to enforce an award, especially if the court proceedings are allowed to ripen into a judgment against the party which prevailed in the arbitration.

Sun Travels说明了仲裁成功一方在执行阶段可能面临的挑战，特别是在败诉方所属司法管辖区内申请执行裁决。败诉方试图对已经在仲裁中确定的事项重新提起诉讼，可能会严重妨碍裁决的执行，特别是如果法院诉讼程序已经发展到对仲裁中胜诉一方做出了不利判决。

The decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal lends welcome clarity to the circumstances in which a court, exercising its supervisory powers over a Singapore-seated arbitration, would grant an anti-suit injunction or anti-enforcement injunction. When devising a foreign enforcement strategy, it is important for parties to consider the need for injunctive relief from the seat court and, where necessary, to ensure that such applications are made promptly.

新加坡上诉法院的判决明确表示，法院在行使其对新加坡仲裁的监督权力时，会做出反诉禁令或反执行禁令。在制定外国执行策略时，对双方来说重要的是，应考虑是否需要向所在地法院申请禁令救济并且，如有必要，及时提出所述申请。

[Author]

【作者】

Claire Chong (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Singapore LLP) Claire Chong（長島·大野·常松法律事務所新加坡办公室） claire_chong@noandt.com Claire Chong is a Singapore qualified attorney in the Singapore office. She focuses her practice on international commercial disputes and investor-state arbitration. She has experience both as counsel and tribunal secretary in international commercial arbitrations conducted under major arbitral rules, including the ICC, ICDR, HKIAC and SIAC rules. Claire Chong是新加坡办公室一名合格的新加坡律师。她专注于国际商事纠纷和投资者与国家间仲裁。在根据主要仲裁规则进行的国际商事仲裁中，包括ICC、国际争议解决中心（ICDR）、香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）和新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）仲裁规则，她曾担任律师和法庭秘书。

 

 

TRADEMARK LAW FINALLY ENACTED IN MYANMAR 缅甸最终制定的《商标法》

2019年1月30日付けでミャンマー商標法が制定された。同法の施行は別途大統領による通知が出された時点と定められており、施行までには新たな商標の登録制度が整備される必要があることからまだ時間を要しそうではあるが、同法では先願主義が採用されていることから施行された場合には速やかな登録申請を行うことが望ましい。そこで本稿ではこの新商標法について概説する。

Background

背景

The Myanmar Trademark Law (Pyihtaungsu Hluttaw Law No.3, 2019) (“Trademark Law”) was signed into law on 30 January 2019. The effective date of the Trademark Law and its implementation will however be announced at a later date. The Trademark Law shall become effective upon the issuance by the President of Myanmar of a notification (“Notification”). To date, there has been no timeline set for the issuance of the Notification or the establishment of a trademark registry system, which is contemplated under the Trademark Law. Once the implementation of the new trademark registration system is in place, all existing trademark owners who are registered under the first-to-use system will need to file new applications under the first-to-file system to protect their marks under the Trademark Law.

《缅甸商标法》（2019年第3号Pyihtaungsu Hluttaw Law）（以下简称“《商标法》”）于2019年1月30日签署成为法律。《商标法》的生效日期及其实施将在日后公布。《商标法》应自缅甸总统发出通知（以下简称“通知”）之日起生效。截至目前，尚未确定发布通知和《商标法》中规定的建立商标注册制度的时间线。一旦实施了新的商标注册制度，所有在使用在先制度下注册的现有商标权人需根据《商标法》在使用在先制度下提出新的申请，以保护其商标。

Key Provisions

主要条款

1. Eligible Marks for Registration

1.合资格商标注册

The Trademark Law provides that trademarks, service marks, collective marks and certificate marks are eligible for the filing of an application for registration in Myanmar. Further, geographical indications may also be registered under the Trademark Law.

《商标法》规定，商标、服务商标、集体商标和证书商标均有资格在缅甸提出注册申请。此外，也可以根据《商标法》注册地理标志。

2. Requirements for Registration of Trademarks

2.商标注册要求

The application for registration of trademark may be applied in either Burmese or the English language. Translation into Burmese or the English language may be required if requested by Director General of the Department (“Registrar”).

可以采用缅甸语或英语提出商标注册申请。如本厅厅长（“注册官”）要求，可能需要将文件翻译成缅甸语或英语。

In relation to the application for registration, the applicant must provide the following documents:

提出注册申请，申请人必须提供以下文件：

(a) the applicant’s request for registration;

（a）申请人的注册请求；

(b) the name and address of the person or lawful organization applying for registration;

（b）申请注册个人或合法组织的名称和地址；

(c) if the application is submitted by a representative of the applicant, the representative’s name, national identification number and address;

（c）由申请人代表提出申请的，应提供代表人的姓名、身份证号和地址；

(d) the complete and clear description of the mark; and

（d）完整清晰的商标说明书；及

(e) the name and standard of goods and services, or goods or services requested for registration in accordance with international mark classification.

（e）商品和服务，或者按照国际商标分类要求注册的商品或服务的名称和标准。

In addition to the above, the following documents must be attached as necessary:

除此之外，如有需要，还须附上以下文件：

(a) if the application is for a lawful organization, the registration number, type and country origin of the organization;

（a）如果为合法组织申请商标，须提供该组织的注册号、类型和原产国；

(b) if the applicant requests right of priority, the documents supporting, describing and requesting the claim of such right of priority;

（b）申请人要求优先权的，须提供证明、说明和请求该项优先权的文件；

(c) if the applicant request trade fair right of priority, documents supporting, describing and requesting such trade fair right of priority;

（c）申请人要求交易会优先权的，须提供证明、说明和要求该项交易会优先权的文件；

(d) if the mark in the application is registered at the Office of the Registration of Deeds, the supporting documents of such registration; and

（d）申请书内商标已在契约登记局注册的，须提供登记相关证明文件；及

(e) any other documents required by the Intellectual Property Rights Agency and Department from time to time.

（e）知识产权局及厅不时要求的任何其他文件。

3. Trademark Protection Period and Renewal

3.商标保护期与续展

The Trademark Law allows for a period of protection of 10 years commencing from the filing date of the registration of the trademark. Such period may then be renewed for a further period of 10 years each time upon its expiration.

《商标法》规定，商标保护期为10年，自商标注册提交之日起计算。商标保护期可在每次到期后再延长10年。

The application for the aforementioned renewal may be made within 6 months prior to the expiry of each term and payment of the prescribed fees will have to be made. In addition, a trademark owner also has the right to apply for such renewal within a grace period of 6 months after the date of expiry of the relevant term by paying the prescribed fees and the applicable late renewal fees.

申请上述续展可于每期届满前6个月内提出，并须缴付订明费用。另外，商标权人也有权在相应期限届满后6个月的宽限期内，缴纳订明费用和适用的逾期续展费，以申请续展。

4. Rights Conferred to Registered Mark

4.注册商标授予权利

Under the Trademark Law, the owner of the registered mark is entitled to the following rights:

根据《商标法》，注册商标权人享有以下权利：

(a) an exclusive right to prohibit and prevent a third party from confusing the public by using identical or similar mark for identical or similar goods or services in the course of trade without the owner’s consent;

（a）专有权，以禁止和防止第三方未经商标权人同意，在贸易过程中对相同或类似商品或服务使用相同或类似的商标，以混淆公众；

(b) an exclusive right to file litigation against any infringer of the rights to the registered mark in either criminal or civil action, or both;

（b）专有权，以在刑事和/或民事诉讼中对任何侵犯注册商标权利的侵权人提起诉讼；

(c) an exclusive right to prohibit and prevent a third party from using identical or similar well- known registered mark for different goods or services in the course of trade without the owner’s consent, if the following situations are involved-

（c）专有权，以在涉及下列情形之一的时候，禁止和防止第三方未经商标权人同意，在贸易过程中对不同商品或服务使用相同或类似的驰名注册商标:

(i) indicating a connection between the well-known registered mark owner and the applied goods or services; or

（i）表明驰名注册商标权人与申请的商品或服务之间存在联系；或

(ii) affecting the interest of the registered mark owner,

（ii）影响注册商标权人的利益，

(d) may transfer and license to any other party, his rights to the registered mark.

（d）可能将其对注册商标的权利转让或许可给任何其他一方。

5. Transfer of Rights of Registered Mark

5.转让注册商标权利

The applicant may apply to the Registrar to record the transfer of its application for registration to another person or a lawful organization. Likewise, the owner of a registered mark may apply to the Registrar to record the transfer of the ownership of its registered mark to another person or a lawful organization.

申请人可以向注册官申请，将其注册申请转让给他人或合法组织之事宜进行备案。同样，注册商标权人可以向注册官申请将其注册商标所有权转让给他人或合法组织之事宜进行备案。

If the application for registration of the transfer of ownership of the registered mark is not submitted to the Department, such transfer of ownership will not be effective.

如果未向本厅申请对注册商标所有权转让事宜进行登记，所有权转让将无效。

6. Procedure for Infringement of Rights

6.侵权程序

An aggrieved party may file to the court for a decision relating to a temporary sanction and such aggrieved party may also file to the court for the imposition of a civil or criminal charge with respect to the infringement of the rights of the owner of the trademark.

针对侵犯商标权人权利的行为，受害方可向法院申请进行临时制裁，也可以向法院提出民事或刑事指控。

The court shall consider the unlawful exercise of trademark rights by any person who is not the owner of the trademark as an infringement of a trademark protected under the Trademark Law and the court shall in such cases, deem that the use of unregistered, popular, identical or similar trademark for identical or similar goods or services is misleading for the general public.

对于非商标权人非法行使商标权的行为，法院应视其为对《商标法》所保护的商标的侵权；在这种情况下，在相同或类似商品或服务上使用未注册的、受关注的、相同或类似的商标，法院应视其为误导大众。

7. Penalties

7.罚款

The Trademark Law provides that the infringement of trademarks and/or the counterfeiting of such trademarks, shall be punishable with up to three years’ of imprisonment or a fine of not exceeding 5 million Kyats or both.

《商标法》规定，商标侵权和/或假冒商标的，应处三年以下监禁或500万缅币以下罚款，或两者并处。

Conclusion

结论

The Trademarks Law implements the framework for a trademark registration system to any individual or entity, whether local or foreign trademark owners in Myanmar. The right of priority for a trademark depends on the date which the mark is earliest filed under the new registration system. Therefore, the trademark owner should not waste any time in registering its trademark when the trademark registry system has been properly established.

《商标法》为缅甸的任何个人或实体，包括本国和外国商标权人，落实了商标注册制度框架。商标的优先权取决于在新注册制度下，该商标提交申请的最早日期。因此，如商标注册制度已建立健全，商标权人应尽快注册商标。

[Author]

【作者】

Win Shwe Yi Htun (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Singapore LLP) Win Shwe Yi Htun（長島·大野·常松法律事務所新加坡办公室） win_shwe_yi_htun@noandt.com Win Shwe Yi Htun is a Myanmar qualified attorney in the Singapore office. Her areas of practice include mergers and acquisitions, general corporate matters, joint venture and employment sectors. Prior to joining NO&T, Shwe Yi worked at top-tiers corporate law firms in Myanmar, where she gained significant experience in handling corporate and commercial transactions, and had participated on various investment projects involving commercial parties from Japan, China, Singapore and Thailand. Win Shwe Yi Htun是新加坡办公室一名合格的缅甸律师。其执业领域包括并购、一般公司事务、合资企业和就业领域。在加入NO&T之前，Shwe Yi就职于缅甸顶级的公司律师事务所，在处理公司和商业交易方面积累了丰富的经验，并参与了诸多投资项目，商事方涉及日本、中国、新加坡和泰国。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This newsletter is given as general information for reference purposes only and therefore does not constitute our firm’s legal advice. Any opinion stated in this newsletter is a personal view of the author(s) and not our firm’s official view. For any specific matter or legal issue, please do not rely on this newsletter but make sure to consult a legal adviser. We would be delighted to answer your questions, if any. 本简报仅供参考之用，不构成本事务所的法律意见。本简报中所述的任何观点是作者的个人观点，而非本事务所的官方观点。如有任何具体事项或法律问题，请不要依赖本简报，一定要咨询法律顾问。如有任何问题，本事务所很乐意回答。

 

 

 

www.noandt.com NAGASHIMA OHNO & TSUNEMATSU 長島·大野·常松法律事務所 JP Tower, 2-7-2 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-7036, Japan 日本东京都千代田区丸之内2丁目7番2号　JP大厦，邮编100-7036 Tel: +81-3-6889-7000 (general) Fax: +81-3-6889-8000 (general) Email: info@noandt.com 电话：+81-3-6889-7000（总机）传真：+81-3-6889-8000（总机）邮箱：info@noandt.com   Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu is the first integrated full-service law firm in Japan and one of the foremost providers of international and commercial legal services based in Tokyo. The firm’s overseas network includes offices in New York, Singapore, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi and Shanghai, associated local law firms in Jakarta and Beijing where our lawyers are on-site, and collaborative relationships with prominent local law firms throughout Asia and other regions. The over 450 lawyers of the firm, including over 30 experienced foreign attorneys from various jurisdictions, work together in customized teams to provide clients with the expertise and experience specifically required for each client matter. 長島·大野·常松法律事務所是日本第一家综合性律师事务所，可提供全方位服务，也是东京最重要的国际和商业法律服务提供商之一。本事务所海外网点包括纽约、新加坡、曼谷、胡志明市、河内和上海办公室，在雅加达和北京当地设合作律师事务所，本事务所律师现场办公，并与亚洲和其他地区当地的知名律师事务所建立了合作关系。本事务所拥有450多名律师，其中包括来自不同司法管辖区的30多名经验丰富的外国律师，他们组成定制团队，为客户提供不同客户事务所需的专业知识和经验。   Singapore Office 新加坡办事处 (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Singapore LLP) （長島·大野·常松法律事務所新加坡办公室） Bangkok Office 曼谷办事处 (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (Thailand) Co., Ltd.) （長島·大野·常松法律事務所泰国办公室）   6 Battery Road #40-06 Singapore 049909 新加坡百得利路6号#40-06 邮编：049909 Tel: 电话： +65-6654-1760 (general) +65-6654-1760（总机） Fax: 传真： +65-6654-1770 (general) +65-6654-1770（总机） Email: 邮箱： info-singapore@noandt.com info-singapore@noandt.com       34th Floor, Bhiraj Tower at EmQuartier 689 Sukhumvit Road, Klongton Nuea Vadhana, Bangkok 10110, Thailand 泰国曼谷Klongton Nuea Sukhumvit路689号EmQuartier Bhiraj塔34楼 邮编：10110 Tel: 电话： +66-2-302-4800 (general) +66-2-302-4800（总机） Fax: 传真： +66-2-302-4899 (general) +66-2-302-4899（总机） Email: 邮箱： info-bangkok@noandt.com info-bangkok@noandt.com     HCMC Office HCMC办事处 (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu HCMC Branch) （長島·大野·常松法律事務所胡志明市办公室） Hanoi Office 河内办公室 (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Hanoi Branch) （長島·大野·常松法律事務所河内办公室）   Suite 1801, Saigon Tower 29 Le Duan Street, District 1 Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 越南胡志明市1区Le Duan街29号Saigon塔1801房 Tel: 电话： +84-28-3521-8800 (general) +84-28-3521-8800（总机） Fax: 传真： +84-28-3521-8877 (general) +84-28-3521-8877（总机） Email: 邮箱： info-hcmc@noandt.com info-hcmc@noandt.com       Suite 10.04, CornerStone Building 16 Phan Chu Trinh, Hoan Kiem District Ha Noi City, Vietnam 越南河内市Hoan Kiem区潘珠桢街16号CornerStone大厦10.04房 Tel: 电话： +84-24-3266-8140 (general) +84-24-3266-8140（总机） Fax: 传真： +84-24-3266-8141 (general) +84-24-3266-8141（总机） Email: 邮箱： info-hanoi@noandt.com info-hanoi@noandt.com     Shanghai Office 上海办事处 (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Shanghai Representative Office) （長島·大野·常松法律事務所驻上海代表处） Jakarta Desk 雅加达办公室 (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Jakarta Desk) （長島·大野·常松法律事務所雅加达办公室）   Two ifc, 25th Floor, 8 Century Avenue Pudong New Area, Shanghai 200120, China 世纪大道8号25楼国金中心二期 中国上海浦东新区，邮编：200120 Tel: 电话： +86-21-6881-7080 (general) +86-21-6881-7080（总机） Fax: 传真： +86-21-6881-7060 (general) +86-21-6881-7060（总机） Email: 邮箱： info-shanghai@noandt.com info-shanghai@noandt.com       c/o Soemadipradja & Taher Wisma GKBI, Level 9 Jl. Jenderal Sudirman No. 28 Jakarta 10210, Indonesia c/o Soemadipradja & Taher Wisma GKBI，Level 9 印度尼西亚雅加达Jl.Jenderal Sudirman 28号9楼Soemadipradja & Taher Wisma 公司，邮编：10210 Email: 邮箱： info-jakarta@noandt.com info-jakarta@noandt.com

If you would like the convenience of receiving future editions of the NO&T Asia Legal Review by email direct to your Inbox, please fill out our newsletter registration form at the following link: http://www.noandt.com/en/publications/newsletter/asia.html

如果您想直接通过电子邮件发送到您的收件箱，方便接收《NO&T亚洲法律评论》的今后版本，请点击以下链接填写我事务所的简报登记表：http://www.noandt.com/en/publications/newsletter/asia.html

Should you have any questions about this newsletter, please contact us at asia-legal-review@noandt.com.

如果您对该简报有任何疑问，请通过asia-legal-review@noandt.com与本事务所联系。

Please note that other information related to our firm may be also sent to the email address provided by you when subscribing to the NO&T Asia Legal Review.

请注意，与本事务所有关的其他信息也可能发送到您订阅《NO&T亚洲法律评论》时提供的电子邮件地址。