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 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
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