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 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
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More