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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
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