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 12, 2022

Indonesia Introduces Shopping Center and Mall Certification Program to Fight Sale of Counterfeits

Subscribe to Updates

The presence of counterfeit goods in the Indonesian market is a stubbornly persistent challenge that has plagued the country for many years. The United States Trade Representative’s Special 301 Report, which is issued each year to assess intellectual property (IP) protection regimes around the world, has listed Indonesia on its “Priority Watch List” 23 times and on the “Watch List” 10 times. The 2021 report included the recommendation that Indonesia develop a specialized IP unit under the Indonesian National Police to focus on investigating domestic criminal syndicates behind counterfeiting and piracy. The police’s Special Crime Unit already handles IP matters and has been operating since long before 2021, but that year Indonesia also established its new IP Enforcement Task Force, which aims to improve intragovernmental coordination on enforcement. However, IP enforcement remains challenging in Indonesia.

The police and the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) handled 346 total IP enforcement cases from 2020 through early 2022. While it is positive to see some enforcement activity, this is a rather low number, considering that the Indonesian market and its population are very large—and that counterfeiting is a widespread and persistent problem.

Shopping for a Solution

One way Indonesia’s Trademark Office is trying to address the country’s repeated problems with counterfeiting and piracy is by introducing a certification system for shopping centers and malls based on their support for intellectual property rights and standards. The certificates are intended to guarantee that the establishment hosts sellers of genuine products.

Both physical markets—such as Pasar Tanah Abang and Mangga Dua, two known markets for counterfeit goods—and online shopping venues are eligible to obtain a certificate. Specifically, this includes department stores, shopping streets, supermarkets, social media, online marketplaces, and crowdsourcing websites that digitally collects information, ideas, opinions, or work from a group of people. However, the certification procedure for online marketplaces has not yet been developed, as these present unique challenges to the certifying authorities.

For physical shopping centers and malls, applicants seeking certification must show evidence that at least 70% of their tenants are selling genuine products and goods—that is, those corresponding with the respective trademark registered with the DGIP.

The steps in obtaining a certificate for a shopping center or mall are outlined below.

Once the landlord of a shopping center or mall contacts the DGIP to seek a certificate, the DGIP will begin an inventory of the shopping venue’s tenants. The data inventory covers tenants’ details and their business—including their relationship with the trademark owner, and the trademark registration related to the goods and services being sold. Next, the DGIP will distribute questionnaires to customers on whether the tenants are selling genuine products. However, no clear details on the form of the questionnaire or the required number of respondents has yet been provided. Depending on the results of the questionnaire, the DGIP will conduct identification and verification of sellers’ operations. This includes checking the relationship of the tenants and trademark owners and the validity of the trademark certificates. If the data validation meets with approval, the DGIP will issue a certificate to the shopping center. In case of rejection, the landlord should educate the tenants so they understand the risk of possible action against IP infringement.

These identification and verification steps are the main factor in why there is not yet a certification process for online marketplaces, as the much higher number of users makes these important steps impractical to carry out.

The certification program for shopping centers and malls also aligns with provisions in the Trademark Law and Copyright Law that specify landlord liability, with building management required to play a role in IP enforcement. The Indonesian Shopping Center Association, however, has pointed out that the situation is complex, as there are two types of shopping center ownership and this affects the involvement of the landlord. First, “strata title” mall ownership arrangements allow the tenants to own exclusive rights over their space or “lot,” as well as the right to use common space. In contrast to this, leased malls are those in which ownership of the lots remains with the landlord, who just grants temporary rights to use the space. For leased malls, the agreements between tenants and landlord include an obligation for tenants to obey the law. In regard to the sale of counterfeit goods, the landlord would be able to take action—such as an order to close the shop until the problem is resolved, or other measures requested by the complainant or authorities—against a tenant who is allegedly selling counterfeits. For strata-title malls, however, the building owner’s options are more limited, but possible measures might include periodically educating owners about IP infringement or posting notices in the premises not to buy infringing products.

On the online side, the Indonesian E-Commerce Association has noted that their members have been proactive in addressing complaints related to IP infringement. Actions they pursue include takedowns, blacklisting, and providing user data to the authorities when appropriate. For now, these efforts will continue apart from the Trademark Office’s certification program, which will remain on hold for sales venues on the internet until the DGIP can implement an efficient procedure for data verification of e-commerce users.

The certification program for malls and shopping centers has recently been launched, and the DGIP has started an informational outreach campaign for various malls in Indonesia. At this point, trademark owners should discuss with the landlord of their local stores in Indonesia to initiate coordination with the DGIP to obtain a certificate.

Conclusion

The shopping center and mall certification program may be of some assistance in helping Indonesia to make progress toward finally leaving the Priority Watch List—particularly if the DGIP focuses on the physical markets that are most notorious for selling counterfeit goods. Educating these markets (along with online marketplaces) about the certification program should be a priority in any publicity campaigns. The certification program has just launched and is not yet compulsory, but such a requirement for certification before sellers can begin physical or online operations could potentially increase the program’s effectiveness.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More