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

April 22, 2020

Impact of COVID-19 on the Indonesian IP System as of May 14, 2020

Subscribe to Updates

In response to the increasing number of COVID-19 cases, the Indonesian Ministry of Health has implemented detailed guidelines for large-scale social restrictions (known as pembatasan sosial berskala besar  or PSBB). PSBB has been applied in two provinces so far—Jakarta and West Sumatra—and may be extended to others in due course. Although the restriction has wide ranging effects on many business sectors, IP owners are still able to exercise their rights by registering them through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). In addition, although courts have postponed some cases, online trials are available and ongoing subject to the discretion of the presiding judge in each case.

However, following the recent extension and expansion of measures that have a limited impact the exercise of intellectual property rights in Indonesia (as detailed in our earlier client alert), we provide an updated overview of the current impact on the IP system in Indonesia below.

Directorate General of Intellectual Property

The DGIP, the Indonesian government agency that oversees IP rights in the country, issued its latest notification on the limitation of physical contact due to the COVID-19 outbreak on May 13, 2020, extending the office closure of physical counters until May 29. During this period, all DGIP officers are working from home and accessing the system remotely, optimizing the online channels for IP matters. These conditions will remain in effect until at least May 29, 2020 (under Circular Letter No. HKI-OT.02.02-19, which may be subject to extension).

Trademarks

The online system remains available for:

  • New trademark application filings.
  • Responses to office actions.
  • Recordals.
  • Appeals.
  • Oppositions and rebuttals.

For all online filings, the original deadlines remain unchanged. Meanwhile, the Trademark Appeal Commission has declared that any appeal deadline falling within the closure period will be extended until the situation is normal (until May 21, 2020, unless extended).

Patents

The online system remains available for:

  • New patent applications.
  • Responses to office actions issued for patent applications filed prior to August 19, 2019 (which must be submitted through the online filing system and no special extension is available). Any failure to submit formality documents must be communicated to the DGIP.
  • Official fees for patent annuities (an official receipt will not be provided until the DGIP counter reopens).

For patent applications filed before August 19, 2019, excess claims cannot be paid through online filing. Therefore, excess claims can be paid when the DGIP counter reopens.

Other

The online filing of copyrights and industrial designs can be conducted normally during this period.

Courts

The Supreme Court has issued Circular Letter No. 1 of 2020 regarding the Guidelines for the Implementation of Duties during the COVID-19 Prevention Period within the Supreme Court and the Lower Judicial Bodies.

The circular letter encourages every judge to optimize their working-from-home system and utilize e-court proceedings. Trials of all cases other than nonextendable criminal, military, or Islamic criminal matters are suspended until the prevention period is over—with further note made by the court clerk. However, the circular letter mentions that judges, at their own discretion, can determine the urgency of suspension. Therefore, the disputing parties in IP cases need to check with the Commercial Court regarding whether the examination of the case is suspended or not.

National Agency of Drug and Food Control

Offices of the National Agency of Drug and Food Control (NADFC, or BPOM in Indonesian), remain closed for walk-in filing and consultation until further notice. The last day that their counters were open for service was March 12, 2020, and they are now officially closed for on-site services until further notice.

During this period, the NADFC officials remain available for inquiry via email, messaging applications, or phone call, though wait times may vary.

 

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