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

December 6, 2018

Indonesia Issues Regulation for Recordal of IP License Agreements

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In July 27, 2018, the Indonesian government enacted Government Regulation No. 36 of 2018 on the Recordal of Intellectual Property License Agreements (GR No. 36/2018). This is the first government regulation ever issued in Indonesia on the procedures for recording license agreements for copyright and related rights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, and plant varieties.

Requirements for License Agreements   

For a license agreement to be eligible for recordal, GR No. 36/2018 sets out the following general requirements:

  • The licensor may not grant a license to the licensee if the terms of protection have lapsed or the IP registration is withdrawn.
  • The license agreement must be written, and in Indonesian.
  • The license agreement cannot include provisions that:
    • Harm Indonesia’s economy or national interests;
    • Hamper the ability of Indonesians to transfer, control, or develop technology;
    • Result in unfair business competition; or
    • Conflict with prevailing laws, religion, morality, and public order.

Additionally, the license agreement must contain the following information:

  • Date and place of execution of the license agreement;
  • Information regarding the licensor and the licensee;
  • Object of the license agreement;
  • Type of license (exclusive, non-exclusive, or sublicense);
  • Duration of the license agreement;
  • Applicable territory; and
  • Information on the party responsible for any patent annuity payment.

To avoid disclosing confidential information, it is advisable to submit a short-form license agreement containing only the aforementioned requirements, rather than the full license agreement between the parties.

Application Process   

An application for recordal can be filed by the licensor, the licensee, or a proxy. The application must include:

  • A copy of the license agreement;
  • An official excerpt of the valid IP registration certificate, or proof of ownership of the IP;
  • Power of attorney (if the application is submitted by a proxy); and
  • Receipt of payment of the official fee for recordal.   

For license agreements related to copyright and related rights, Article 9 of GR No. 36/2018 specifies that if there are multiple titles or creations with the same licensor/licensee, all of the works may be included in one application for recordal.   

After submission of the application, an examiner will review the application to verify that all required documents have been submitted. If the application is complete, the examiner will inspect the correctness of the documents within five days of submission. If it is determined that the documents do not meet the requirements, the examiner will issue a written notice to the applicant. The applicant must then provide the requested documents or otherwise rectify any shortcomings within 30 business days after the notice is received. Failure to do so will lead to withdrawal of the application.   

Once the examiner determines that the application is complete, a letter of recordal of the license agreement will be issued within two days. The license agreement will be recorded with the relevant IP registry and the recordal will be published in the relevant official gazette.

Validity, Amendment, and Revocation

A recordal of a license agreement is valid for the same term specified in the license agreement itself. At the expiration of this term, the applicant may re-apply for recordal.

If there is an amendment to the license agreement, the licensor or the licensee may apply for recordal of the amended license agreement. The amendment will be recorded and published, just as the original.

A recordal of a license agreement may be revoked by an agreement between the licensor and licensee or based on a judicial decision.

Other Issues   

Under Article 15(4) of GR No. 36/2018, if a license agreement is not recorded and published, it will have no legal implications toward a third party. Thus, prior to commencing any legal action against a third party, IP holders are strongly advised to first confirm that the license agreement was properly recorded.   

While the new regulation marks a positive advance in the protection and enforcement of IP in Indonesia, rights holders should note that, to date, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property has not yet fully implemented the steps of notifying the applicant of the recordal of the license agreement and publication in the official gazette.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More