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

October 11, 2021

A Look at Indonesia’s E-Filing System for Patents, Designs, and Trademarks

Subscribe to Updates

Indonesia’s e-filing system for intellectual property, which was introduced in steps in recent years, became a vital tool during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it allows for the remote filing of intellectual property applications at any time. The increasingly feature-rich system, which now allows the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) to accept all types of intellectual property submissions online, is a welcome step forward that has had a very positive impact on the country’s intellectual property activities. Now that the online system is fully in place and functioning well, it is worth considering which points could be improved in future iterations of the project.

Patents

The e-filing system is especially easy to use for filing new patent applications, and also allows for the completion of post-filing tasks, including lodging oppositions and responding to office actions. In fact, office actions themselves are issued via the system, but without any active notification, leaving it up to the filers to proactively check on whether any office action has been issued. Additionally, after filing a response to an office action, no receipt is issued in return. The only way to be certain that a response has been successfully submitted is by logging into the system to check that the office action is no longer listed as outstanding.

Amendments can be submitted at any time prior to the grant of the patent. However, the official fee for excess claims can only be paid when the status of the application is under substantive examination.

Designs

Design applications and post-application filings, including rejection responses, can also all be made through the e-filing system. However, there are issues with design applications that have more than one drawing per view. In such a case, the multiple drawings for that particular view must be combined on one sheet before uploading the application. Otherwise, the extra drawings will be reclassified as “reference view” on the design certificate, likely resulting in a lengthy delay, because the e-filing system does not allow correction requests. Such requests can only be made in person at the DGIP office.

Rejection notices are sent via email and cannot be found on the e-filing system, which will only display the application status as “Director’s approval of rejection decision.” Similar to the office action responses for patents described above, responses to a rejection receive no official filing receipt.

Trademarks

One convenient feature of the e-filing system for trademark applications is its translated list of goods and services in English and Bahasa Indonesia, minimizing the risk of erroneous translation. However, the list of goods and services is subject to change from time to time, and it is not uncommon to find some goods and services deleted unexpectedly or the wording altered. If the desired goods or services are missing from the list but are mentioned on the Madrid List of Goods and Services, a request to add them may be submitted with the application. The request process can be time-consuming, and the application will not receive a filing date unless the list has been finalized. Sometimes the request is not automatically forwarded to the classification officer, and the request must then be made to the DGIP’s customer service department.

Some miscellaneous issues encountered in the trademark section of the e-filing system include the following:

  • After an application is submitted, an error sometimes prevents the receipt from being downloadable, necessitating further discussions with customer service.
  • All notifications for trademark-related applications are issued electronically, but sometimes the notification date displayed by the e-filing system is later than the actual date of the notification letter, because the letters of notification are not always uploaded to the e-filing system on the day they were issued by the officer.
  • The registration certificate from the e-filing system does not always list the goods or services in the same order as the application. The only remedy for this is to submit a change request.
  • The status of applications in the e-filing system is not always up to date.
  • Under heavy traffic, the system becomes inaccessible for hours. It can be difficult to reach customer service due to limited availability. The live chat feature for questions is likewise often delayed or unresponsive.

Conclusion

Indonesia’s move to an e-filing system has brought tremendous gains in flexibility and convenience to the country’s management of intellectual property rights—particularly for intellectual property consultants working from home during the pandemic. The online system has greatly modernized procedures for securing intellectual assets in Indonesia, and with the additional functionality added and honed since the onset of the pandemic, the system has become an integral part of the DGIP’s interactions with rights holders and applicants. Though much of the application data from the initial phases of the e-filing system has yet to be added to the current system, once this data is integrated, the e-filing system will be even more useful.

The DGIP now has the opportunity to build on its successful implementation of this comprehensive e-filing system by addressing the various challenges and shortcomings identified above. With time, the DGIP will work out these issues and others that may arise, increasing the practicality of the e-filing system as the foremost tool for intellectual property prosecution in Indonesia.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
Read More
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