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• The licensor may not grant a license to the licensee if the terms of protection have lapsed or the IP registration is withdrawn.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​ 

October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More