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​ 

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
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More