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 28, 2018

Indonesia Issues New Implementing Regulation for Customs Recordal

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Indonesian Ministry of Finance has issued a new regulation that makes it possible to record trademarks and copyright with the Directorate General of Customs and Excise so that customs authorities can inform intellectual property rights owners of potential counterfeit goods. Minister of Finance Regulation No. 40/PMK.04/2018 regarding Recordation, Restraint, Guarantee, Temporary Suspension, Monitoring and Evaluation in Order to Control Import or Export of Goods Allegedly or Originated from Infringement of Intellectual Property (“MOF 40/2018”) was issued on April 16, 2018, and came into effect on June 16, 2018.

MOF 40/2018 serves as the implementing regulation for Government Regulation No. 20 of 2017 regarding Import Control or Export of Goods Allegedly/Originated from Infringement of Intellectual Property. The scope of this new implementing regulation is outlined below.

Recordation of Trademark and Copyright

According to MOF 40/2018, an owner or holder of a trademark or copyright may submit an application for customs recordation of its IP rights if it is a business entity in Indonesia. A distributor cannot apply for recordation, potentially creating an enforcement hurdle in the future if Indonesian customs authorities encounter infringing goods with trademark or copyright registered to a foreign company that does not have a local Indonesian entity in its name.

An application may be submitted online via https://customer.beacukai.go.id, and the competent customs official will examine each application before approving the recordal of IP rights into the customs recordation system. Each recordation is valid for a maximum of one year from the date of approval and is applicable for all ports within Indonesian territory. Each recordation may also be extended provided that an extension application is filed at least 30 days before the recordation period ends.

Each IP rights holder is required to appoint an expert who has sufficient knowledge of the goods related to the trademark or copyright that will be recorded in the customs recordation system. The expert should be capable of identifying counterfeit goods and familiar with the distribution channels of genuine goods.

Customs officials will conduct an interview with the appointed expert, who will be expected to show his or her knowledge of the product and distribution channel, and assist authorities in verifying alleged counterfeit goods. The expert does not have to be the rights holder or someone from the rights holder’s company, as long as the expert has been appointed and is capable. It is thus important for the rights holder to provide regular product training to update its expert’s knowledge.

After recordation is completed, the IP rights owner or holder must notify customs officials if there are any changes to its recorded trademark or copyright. Should the need arise, the rights owner or holder may submit an application to revoke the recordation of its IP rights before the recordation’s actual expiration date.

Restraint and Prevention

Article 10 of MOF 40/2018 allows customs officials to conduct an inspection of suspicious imported or exported goods. The information contained in each IP rights recordation will enable customs officials to obtain sufficient evidence during inspections or conduct effective intelligence analysis of potentially infringing goods.

If potential IP infringement is found, customs officials will notify the IP rights owner or holder, who will have two days to decide whether to submit a request for a temporary suspension order to the relevant court.

Temporary Suspension

If a temporary suspension order is sought, the IP rights owner or holder must provide security guarantees to customs officials in the amount of IDR 100 million (approximately USD 7,100), either in the form of a bank guarantee or a guarantee issued by an insurance company. The IP rights owner or holder must then submit a temporary suspension request to the court and provide a receipt to the competent customs official within four days after confirmation that the request has been submitted.

After receiving the court order for temporary suspension, the customs official must notify the following parties within one day: (1) the importer or exporter of the suspected counterfeit goods; (2) the IP rights owner or holder; and (3) the Directorate General of Intellectual Property.

Customs officials will implement temporary suspension for 10 working days after receiving the court order. The IP rights owner or holder may also submit a petition to the court to extend the temporary suspension for a maximum period of an additional 10 working days.

During the temporary suspension, the IP rights owner or holder can request to inspect the alleged infringing goods by submitting a request for physical inspection to customs officials within two working days from the date Court has issued the suspension order.

Customs officials must terminate the temporary suspension should any of the following events occur:

  • the period for temporary suspension or extension of temporary suspension has passed;
  • an order has been issued by the Commercial Court to stop the temporary suspension; or
  • civil or criminal legal action has been initiated.

Additional Considerations

Article 24 of MOF 40/2018 places the responsibility for all operational costs arising from the restraint and temporary suspension of the alleged infringing goods on the IP rights owner or holder. The operational costs for storage, handling of goods, and labor are estimated to be IDR 100 million (about USD 7,100), approximately the same amount as the IP rights owner or holder’s security guarantees.

Brand owners should be aware of the short timeframe for action once a temporary suspension has been initiated and must act quickly in conducting inspection and taking further legal action. Proactive brand owners may also consider providing training to Indonesian customs officials on the identification of counterfeit goods from genuine products, thereby increasing the capabilities of authorities in enforcing IP rights in this jurisdiction in the future.

Although MOF 40/2018 has yet to be applied in practice, the enactment of this implementing regulation does reflect the continual efforts and commitment of the government to strengthen the overall IP protection regime in Indonesia.

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