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

March 2, 2021

Resolving Domain Name Disputes in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Since 2014, Indonesia’s domain name registry (PANDI) has overseen the registration of .id domain names, following the earlier country code top-level domains (ccTLDs), such as .co.id, .or.id, and .go.id. PANDI has recently reported on the growth of .id domain names in 2019, which saw an increase in registrations of about 45%, reaching a total of 135,000 registrants.

An Indonesian Internet Providers Association (APJII) nationwide survey found that the number of internet users in Indonesia increased by 14.6 percent to 196 million people in the period between 2019 and Q2 2020, up from 171 million in 2018. The survey also revealed that Indonesia’s internet penetration rate has gone up to 73.7 percent. This means that the country is catching up with neighboring Brunei, Singapore, and Thailand, whose internet penetration rates exceeded 70 percent last year. Part of this increase seems to be related to the limitation of in-person activity in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.

This internet usage growth has also meant a higher incidence of cybercrimes and online disputes, including over domain names. According to the domain name dispute statistics from WIPO, there have been 274 generic top-level domain name disputes involving Indonesian respondents to date. Meanwhile, 18 cases have so far been decided by PANDI’s Domain Name Dispute Resolution (PPND) in fights against Indonesian ccTLD cybersquatters, third parties who attempt to register domain names using the trademarks of others. PPND, a non-litigation dispute settlement body for disputes over Indonesian internet domain names, handles domain name disputes related to trademarks, registered names or regarding matters of decency. The examination of such disputes is conducted by PPND panel(s).

PANDI’s Domain Name General Policy version 6.0, dated February 25, 2019, explains the five categories of.id domain names: normative, trademark-related, product- or service-related, distributorship-related, or institutional.

Ministry of Communication Regulation No. 23 of 2013 regarding Domain Name Management stipulates that a registered trademark holder is entitled to register, use, and benefit from Indonesian ccTLDs. Based on PANDI’s naming guidelines, a trademark registration or application is required if the applicant claims that the domain name is related to their trademark. However, in practice, the registrar typically only requires a copy of the registrant’s ID card to proceed with the .id domain name registration, because the registrar may choose another naming criterion that does not require a trademark or other IP ownership. This may lead to the registration of .id domains by cybersquatters.

Procedures

PPND welcomes any trademark holder to file a complaint regarding domain names violating their registered trademark, before filing litigation with the court.

The current PPND policy (version 7.0) requires that every claimant file a pre-objection as the first step. The pre-objection phase includes a request for the whois data, which reveals the owner of a domain. Obtaining the results takes around three days after the pre-objection documents are completed and accepted by PPND. Upon receiving the pre-objection result, the next step is filing an objection laying out pertinent arguments. PPND may then proceed to mediation, followed by examination of the objection.

The simplified timeline below shows the key steps in the process.

Under normal circumstances, the whole process may take around 2–3 months to be decided. An unsatisfied party that disagrees with the PPND decision may file a lawsuit with the court.

Possible Arguments

A claimant requesting a domain name take-down or transfer in accordance with the PPND policy must prove all of the following conditions:

  • The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark;
  • The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
  • The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Of these three concurrent claims, the most challenging one to prove is the bad-faith intent. Nonetheless, it is essential. Even if a claimant can show valid trademark ownership and prove that the domain name in question was filed by an unauthorized entity, the PPND panels will refuse the claim if evidence of bad faith is lacking.

The strongest evidence of bad faith is any request (e.g. text message, email, etc.) by the registrant for compensation for transferring the domain name. Such evidence is straightforward proof that the registrant intended to sell, lease, or transfer the domain name for his or her financial benefit. However, of the 18 cases decided by the PPND since its inception, only seven were able to prove the registrant’s intent to sell the domain name for financial benefit.

There are other types of actions that are considered bad faith as well. For example, bad faith can be proven by showing that the registrant intends to prevent the trademark owner to use the contested domain name (i.e., parked domain), or by showing that the registrant intended to damage the trademark owner’s business activities. In addition, a domain name registrant intending to attract the internet user to another online location for illegal financial benefit would be another clear indication of bad faith.

Case Study

When the well-known video streaming service Netflix found that neflix.id had been registered by an unauthorized Indonesian citizen using their well-known trademark, they brought the matter before the PPND.

As the company had already registered their trademark in Indonesia, Netflix was able to prove that netflix.id was filed by an unauthorized party. However, no proof of intent to sell was forthcoming, so Netflix made the accusation that netflix.id was a parked domain, with the registrant trying to prevent Netflix from registering and using the domain name in Indonesia.

In his reply, the registrant pointed out that Netflix had not secured netflix.id before, and argued that in light of the “first to file” domain name registration principle, Netflix should have registered the domain name as soon as they were eligible to do so. The PPND, however, disagreed, deciding that the claim had in fact proved the three necessary conditions simultaneously. Hence, netflix.id was transferred to Netflix’s ownership.

Conclusion

Just as well-known brands are targeted by intellectual property infringers, these brands can also be targeted by parties wishing to benefit from their reputation or name recognition through a domain name. The process of acting against this in Indonesia is not simply a matter of trademark enforcement, but is a separate process governed by a different set of laws and regulations. Brand owners should be aware that having a trademark portfolio and strategy is often not enough; rather, they need a comprehensive and strategic awareness of how to manage all of their current and potential assets, including virtual properties such as domain names.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

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.
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
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
Read More
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
Read More