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

May 29, 2017

New Regulation Clarifies Procedures Under Indonesia’s Amended Trademark Law

Informed Counsel

Indonesia recently enacted a regulation as part of the process for implementing its new Trademark Law, Law No. 20 of 2016 on Marks. Effective since February 1, 2017, “Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 67 of 2016 on Trademark Registration” sets out several key points under Indonesia’s new trademark law system.

The regulation simplifies the formality requirements for trademark registration and renewal, sets out clear criteria for recognition of a well-known mark, provides for the possibility of refusal of a trademark application due to an existing well-known mark for unrelated goods or services, and allows for assignment of trademark applications. This article will provide details of the new procedures.

Formality Requirements for Registration and Renewal

Indonesia follows the “first-to-file” trademark system. Therefore, the filing date of an application is very important, as it reflects the prior rights of the applicant. In the past, the filing date was obtained only when the formality documents (including Power of Attorney and Statement of Mark Ownership) were provided at the time of application filing. Late filing of these documents was not possible at the Indonesian Trademark Office.

This practice has been changed by Article 4, paragraph 1 of the new regulation, which stipulates that the minimum requirements to obtain a filing date are the trademark application, the specimen of the mark, and the bank payment slip for the trademark application fee. An applicant then has up to 30 days from the filing date to proceed with late filing of the formality requirements. An additional late filing period is available for priority documents, which can be submitted up to three months after the deadline to file the trademark application with priority claim, according to Article 11, paragraph 1.

The new regulation also simplifies the formality requirements for trademark renewals, with Article 24 omitting the requirement to submit a copy of the trademark certificate.

Criteria for Well-Known Marks

The previous Trademark Law introduced the concept of well-known trademarks, but it was vague about the criteria to qualify as a well-known mark. This issue has been addressed by Article 18, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the new regulation, which states that the determination about whether a mark is well known will depend on the following aspects of the mark:

  • Level of knowledge or recognition of the public toward the mark in the concerned business field;
  • Volume of sales of goods or services and benefits obtained from use of the mark by its owner;
  • Market share of goods or services under the mark;
  • Geographic coverage;
  • Time period of usage;
  • Amount of promotion, including the value of the investment used for the campaign;
  • Registrations or applications in other countries;
  • Level of success of law enforcement for the mark, particularly recognition as a well-known mark by regulatory authorities;
  • Inherent value of the mark acquired due to its reputation and quality assurance of goods or services protected by the mark.

Trademark owners will welcome the clarity provided by these new criteria, which should encourage more applicants to seek well-known status.

Refusal Based on Well-Known Mark

The regulation provides for the possibility that an Examiner can refuse a trademark application on the basis that it is identical or confusingly similar to an existing well-known mark for unrelated goods or services. To effect a refusal on these grounds, the owner of the well-known mark must file an official opposition against the application. Pursuant to Article 19, paragraph 3 of the regulation, the opposition must be based on a registered well-known mark—that is, the opposer’s mark must be registered prior to filing the opposition.

This formal opposition process based on a well-known registered trademark with unrelated goods or services appears to be a prerequisite before the Examiner can issue a final rejection of a mark that is similar in principle or in its entirety to a well-known mark. A question remains as to whether or not Examiners will take a well-known mark into consideration during the examination process if no written opposition has been filed. 

Assignment of Applications

Indonesia’s new Trademark Law allows for a pending trademark application to be assigned during the application process, prior to registration. The old law did not allow for assignment of trademark applications; only registered marks could be assigned.

The new law, however, does not allow every pending trademark application to be assigned. As explained by the Indonesian Trademark Office at a recent national seminar, trademark applications filed before the enactment of the new Trademark Law on November 25, 2016, cannot be assigned until they are registered. The regulation affirmed this in Article 52. Thus, only pending trademark applications filed after the enactment of the new law can be assigned .

Overall, the simplified procedures and additional clarity introduced by this new regulation are likely to contribute to smoother and more timely trademark registrations, renewals, and assignments for brand owners.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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.
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
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear