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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More