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 28, 2015

Conformity of Trademark Use in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In Indonesia, a trademark must be “used” in a way that conforms to the format, colors, fonts, design, and goods/services in the mark’s certificate of trademark registration. If a trademark is used in a way that does not conform to its certificate of trademark registration, then the mark’s registration is in jeopardy of being cancelled on the grounds of “non-use,” even if the trademark owner has valid reasons for not using his or her mark in a way that conforms to the certificate of trademark registration (although certain exceptions do exist).

As the consequences are potentially disastrous for a trademark owner whose trademark registration is cancelled on the grounds of non-use, in this article, we will discuss the conformity of trademark use in Indonesia and the upcoming changes to the country’s Trademark Law.

Legal Basis and Definition

The current Indonesian Trademark Law gives authority to the Directorate General of the Intellectual Property Rights Office to cancel the registration of a trademark either on its own initiative, at the request of a trademark owner, or as a result of the submission by a third party in the form of a lawsuit in the Court of Commerce.

A registered trademark can be cancelled on the following grounds:

  • for not being used at all;
  • for being used for goods or services that differ from those for which the registration was granted; or
  • if the use of the mark does not conform to the registered mark.

“Conform” also means that the actual use of the mark must be for the goods or services that are stated in the certificate of registration. If actual use of the mark is for different goods or services, the registration of trademarks for all or part of the applied goods or services may be cancelled.

The “Café Amazon” trademark was accepted for registration in Indonesia as a “series” of both color and black-and-white representations, even though series marks are not recognized under Indonesia’s Trademark Law. In practice, the registrant of this mark would not be able to use both color and black-and-white marks, as appearing in the registration, for their products and services. This creates an issue of nonconformity of use for the trademark (i.e., using the mark in a manner different from what the mark was registered for), and the mark’s registration could risk being cancelled on the grounds of non-use.

Bearing this in mind, in Indonesia, it is advisable to use a trademark in exactly the same style, format, color(s), etc., that are included in the certificate of trademark registration. And when filing a trademark application, the applicant should file it in the exact same manner as he or she plans to use the trademark in the market.

Exemptions to Non-Use Cancellation

In situations where a registered trademark has not been used or where use of the mark does not conform to its registration, the registered trademark may be exempt from cancellation if the trademark owner has a valid reason for such non-use or lack of conformity. Such reasons may include import prohibitions, prohibitions relating to the permit of the distribution of the goods or temporary authority regulations, or other similar prohibitions stipulated by any government regulation.

Upcoming Changes

Indonesia has made preparations to revise the current Trademark Law and its implemented regulations. One possible change to the Trademark Law relates to the removal of the provisions that allow the Directorate General of the Intellectual Property Rights Office to cancel the registration of trademarks on its own initiative. With this change, non-use cancellation actions can only be initiated by a third party in the form of a lawsuit in the Court of Commerce. This proposed change may lessen the degree of risk associated with the use of a trademark that does not conform to the mark’s registration.

Download Full Article
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