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 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More