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​ 

July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More