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

August 29, 2014

Increase in Official Fees for IP Prosecution in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Indonesian Government implemented Government Regulation No. 45 on July 3, 2014, regarding Non-Taxable State Revenue. This had the effect of changing the official fee structure for numerous IP prosecution-related actions in Indonesia. However, not all IP-related official fees have changed. Certain types of work still have the same official fees, while others have been waived altogether. Overall, however, many have been increased, with some being to quite a significant extent.

The significant changes being made to the official fees are summarized as follows:

The highest increase is seen in the official filing fee of a simple patent (utility model/petty patent) filed by anyone who is not an SME or an educational or government R&D institution. The official filing fee has increased by 300% and has the additional condition that if the specification is longer than 30 pages and/or if the application contains more than 10 claims, additional official fees of IDR 5,000 per page and/or IDR 50,000 per claim shall also be applied.

Apart from that, the fee for collecting/issuing certificates, which had been minimal, has now been waived, but many new types of actions which could previously be done at no charge are now subject to official fees. For example, there used to be no official fee for amending the data in a trademark application resulting from a typographical error, but now, such action incurs an official fee.

For SMEs and educational and government R&D institutions, the official fees have been reduced for many types of work. For instance, the official fees for filing a patent, simple patent, industrial design, and trademark application are lower for SMEs and educational and government R&D institution applicants than for other private or public entities.

One of the most interesting results of the new regulation is that the official filing fee for a trademark application is now calculated based on a range of goods of ten items per class. While there is no limitation on the number of items of goods/services or the number of classes that an applicant can put in their trademark application, the DGIP now charges the official filing fee based on the number of goods in a range. 

For example, if an applicant wants to file 30 items of goods in one application in one class, the official fee will be charged at USD 100 for the 1st–10th goods, USD 100 for the 11th–20th goods, and USD 100 for the 21st–30th goods. In this case, the total official fee to be paid for this application is USD 300.

If the applicant wants to file 11 items of goods in one application in one class, the official fee will be charged at USD 100 for the 1st–10th goods and USD 100 for the 11th good. In this case, the total official fee to be paid is USD 200.

As the official fees are charged at 10 goods/services per class, if the applicant wants to file a multiple-class trademark application for 11 items of goods in one class and 5 items of goods in another class within the same application, the official fees will be charged at USD 100 for the 1st–10th goods in one class, USD 100 for the 11th good in one class, and USD 100 for the 1st–5th goods in another class. In this case, the total official fee to be paid is USD 300.

In practice, the DGIP has a Verification Counter for checking the number of goods/services contained in the trademark applications before the applications are submitted to the Receiving Counter. This should help to ensure that applicants submit all the necessary documents, pay the correct amount of official fees, and lessen the chance of office actions being issued for the formality matters. 

It is worth noting, in any case, that the DGIP follows the 10th Edition of the Nice Classification for designating goods/services. Therefore, the method for estimating the official fees per item of goods/services is to designate and count the goods/services in an Indonesian trademark application according to the item listing in the 10th Nice Classification.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
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