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

March 9, 2015

Franchise Agreement Registration in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

With the biggest economy in ASEAN and the fourth-largest population in the world, Indonesia is an attractive location for franchisors. In this article, we will examine the process for registering franchise agreements in Indonesia, in order to provide guidance to those operating or planning to operate in this lucrative and highly competitive market.

The Governing Law

Government Regulation No. 42 of 2007 on Franchising, together with a few other regulations issued by the Ministry of Trade, set out the requirements to establish a franchise in Indonesia. For a business to be qualified as a franchise, it must have:

  1. specific business characteristics;
  2. proven records of profitability for at least two years; and
  3. written standards of the offered goods and/or services (franchise-offering prospectus).

In addition, business conduct must be teachable and capable of being applied by the franchisee, and the franchisor must be available for continuous support and must have registered any related intellectual property rights with Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property. All relevant franchise agreements must also be completed and registered.

Franchise Agreement Registration

Upon entering into a franchise agreement, the franchisor must provide the franchisee with a franchise-offering prospectus (detailed disclosure). The franchise-offering prospectus must contain, among other details on the business and the franchising parties, a history of business activities, financial statements, lists of franchisees, and the rights and obligations of the franchisor and the franchisee.

The franchise-offering prospectus and the franchise agreement must be registered with the Ministry of Trade in order to obtain a franchise registration certificate (Surat Tanda Pendaftaran Waralaba/STPW). A franchisor (or an authorized proxy) must first submit a draft franchise agreement to the Ministry of Trade for its review. If the draft franchise agreement does not violate any local laws or regulations, the franchisor may proceed to file an application and register their franchise-offering prospectus in the Indonesian language with the Ministry of Trade. If the franchisor is a foreign entity, the prospectus must be legalized in the country of origin prior to registration in Indonesia and must be submitted together with a sworn translation. The prospectus must be filed at least two weeks before entering into an agreement with a franchisee.

Once the prospectus is registered, the franchisor and franchisee can enter into a franchise agreement. Franchise agreements, among other requirements, must be registered by each franchisee (or an authorized proxy) with the Ministry of Trade.

A franchise agreement must be executed on the basis of a written agreement between a franchisor and a franchisee, it must comply with Indonesia’s law, and it must be drawn up in the Indonesian language. Thus, if a franchise agreement is drafted in a foreign language, an Indonesian translation of the agreement must be provided alongside the original. In case of a dispute arising over the agreement, the Indonesian version shall prevail.

If everything is in order, the Ministry of Trade will issue a franchise registration certificate, which shall be valid for five years and extendable for another five years, subject to the period that the franchise agreement is effective. If the application is rejected, applicants are entitled to resubmit the application.

Sanctions for Failing to Comply

Government authorities can impose administrative sanctions on franchisors or franchisees in the following cases:

  • The franchisor fails to foster training, operational counseling of management, offerings, research and development, and the sustainability of a franchisee.
  • Either the franchisor or the franchisee fails to register the franchise-offering prospectus or the franchise agreement.

Administrative sanctions can be made in the following forms:

  1. Written Warnings: A warning in writing can be made once every two weeks for a total of three times, starting from the date of issuance of the previous warning.
  2. Fine: After the third written warning has been issued, a fine shall be imposed on franchisors that do not register the franchise-offering prospectus or on franchisees that do not register the franchise agreement. The maximum fine is IDR 100 million (approximately USD 8,333).
  3. Revocation of the Franchise’s Certificate of Registration: After the third written warning has been issued, the certificate of registration of the franchise shall be revoked from a franchisor if it is not fostering its franchisees.

Franchise Logo

An additional obligation under the law is that the franchise logo must be used at the location of the head office and outlets of the domestic franchisor. Franchisors and franchisees who have franchise registration certificates must use a franchise logo—otherwise, they may face sanctions from written warnings, leading up to suspensions and a revocation of the franchise registration certificate.

In addition to the overview provided above, there are numerous other factors and requirements involved in starting and operating a franchise business in Indonesia. Franchisors and franchisees need to have a clear understanding of the various steps in the process and their compliance requirements, as the responsible government authorities are keeping a watchful eye on this growing sector.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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 as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More