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

June 3, 2016

Recordation of IP License Agreements in Indonesia: Analysis of the New Regulations

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Indonesia has set out, for the first time, regulations on the procedures to record license agreements for trademarks, patents, copyright, and industrial designs. Although there was previously a requirement to record license agreements, recordation was not actually possible in practice due to a lack of implementing regulations and guidelines.

Past Practices

In the past, instead of recording IP license agreements, trademark owners would file their license agreements to obtain an official stamp on the documents as evidence of good faith. Trademark owners went ahead with filing their license agreements, despite the fact that it was unclear whether or not they were enforceable against third parties. Filing a license agreement, however, was not considered as official recordation, because the process should have involved:

  • making a request to record a license agreement at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP);
  • paying the prescribed fees; and
  • obtaining an examination of the application to record the license agreement.

An IP license agreement would only be considered as officially recorded if these steps were properly taken and successfully fulfilled, but this was not previously possible due to a lack of implemented regulations and guidelines.

New Ministerial Regulation

In an effort to curb these problems, on February 24, 2016, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights issued a Ministerial Regulation on the Requirements and Procedures for Recordation of Intellectual Property License Agreements (Ministerial Regulation). This is an important development, because without recordation, license holders do not have the right to enforce their IP rights under a license agreement against infringers.

In fact, IP license agreements that are not recorded are not recognized by any third party. For example, a licensee’s use of a registered mark under an unrecorded license agreement is not considered as actual “use” by the IP owner. This can lead to the cancellation of the trademark’s registration based on non-use (after three consecutive years), even if the mark was used by a non-recorded licensee.

Under the Ministerial Regulation, a recorded IP license agreement will be valid across the entire territory of the Republic of Indonesia, unless agreed otherwise, for a period of five years. Although the licensor and licensee may agree on a longer term of validity, recordation of the license agreement would only be valid for five years, and  it must not exceed the term of protection of the concerned intellectual property. Recordation can be extended, subject to the payment of fees in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws. 

In addition to licensing whole trademark registrations, it is possible to license part of the goods or services of a registration. It is also not mandatory for a licensor to grant an exclusive license to only one licensee—the licensor may continue to use the licensed IP or grant additional licenses to other parties, unless agreed otherwise. Sublicenses by licensees are also permitted.

Requirements and Procedures

The Ministerial Regulation introduces a number of requirements and procedures for the recordation of IP license agreements. Recordation can be done either electronically through the DGIP’s official website or by submitting a hard copy version of the required documents to the DGIP.

In addition to the basic documents that are required, such as a power of attorney and a copy of the IP registration certificate, a copy or proof of the license agreement must also be submitted to the DGIP. In interpreting a “copy or proof” of the license agreement, it is presumed that a short-form license agreement can be submitted instead of a copy of the original license agreement, in order to maintain party confidentiality and reduce translation costs. A short-form license agreement should be submitted in both English and Indonesian, because under the law, Indonesian is the official language for transactions and commercial documents.

Under the Ministerial Regulation, the DGIP will examine each recordation application to determine the completeness of the required documents within ten working days after an application is filed. At this point, it is unknown whether the DGIP would be able to complete the examination within the stipulated period of ten days, because for other types of recordation such as Recordal of Assignment or Recordal of Name/Address Change, it normally takes the DGIP more than one year to issue a Certificate of Recordal.

After examining a recordation application, if the DGIP determines that the required documents are complete, the Minister will record the license agreement in the General Register for each respective type of IP. On the other hand, if certain required documents are missing, the application will be returned to the applicant to provide the required documents within a prescribed period. If the deadline is not met, the recordation will be abandoned. It is, however, possible to re-file the application to record the license agreement, but this comes with prescribed official fees.

Registrants who submitted a license agreement to the DGIP prior to the Ministerial Regulation’s enactment should re-file their agreement in accordance with the new requirements and procedures. This will ensure greater legal certainty and the recognition of license agreements by third parties.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
Read More
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More