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

March 10, 2026

Indonesia Speeds Up Trademark Examination

Subscribe to Updates

Indonesia’s trademark prosecution process has been significantly streamlined with Ministry of Law Regulation No. 5 of 2026 (MOLR 5/2026) coming into effect on February 23, 2026. In straightforward cases without opposition, applicants may now see their trademarks proceed to registration within three months from filing—a substantial improvement over previous practice.

The regulation also introduces detailed procedures for recording changes of name and address and for transferring rights over pending applications. It enhances the role of the Ministry of Law’s regional offices in assisting local individuals and SMEs, adds provisions governing force majeure situations, implements new requirements for collective trademarks, and formalizes several practices already in place.

Substantive Examination Acceleration

The most significant change under MOLR 5/2026 concerns substantive examination. The regulation now explicitly requires that applications be published within 15 days of filing, followed by a two-month publication period. Oppositions must be filed only within this window; late submissions will not be processed, even if the system accepts payment.

The new regulation requires the Trademark Office (TMO) to forward copies of any opposition to applicants within 14 days of receipt. If no opposition is filed, substantive examination begins immediately after the publication period ends and will be completed within 30 days. If an opposition is filed, the examination is to be finalized within 90 days of the counterstatement filing date. These timelines enable unopposed applications to move from close of publication to final decision in roughly one month.

If an application is provisionally refused during ex officio examination, the applicant has 30 working days from the date of notification to file a response. However, the regulation does not specify the timeline for subsequent reexamination after the response is filed. In recent practice, the TMO has been completing reexamination within approximately two to three months.

Ownership Recordals May Pause Substantive Examination

MOLR 5/2026 introduces a detailed mechanism for recording changes of ownership at the application stage, including changes of name or address as well as assignments, mergers, and acquisitions involving pending applications.

While Trademark Law No. 20 of 2016 made such recordals technically permissible, an absence of clear procedures and timelines created uncertainty. MOLR 5/2026 provides greater procedural clarity but also adds time to the examination schedule.

Any request to record a change of name or address or a transfer of ownership triggers an additional 15-day examination period for the recordal. If submitted documents are incomplete, the TMO is required to issue a notification no later than 30 days after the recordal examination concludes. Applicants then have two months to respond, after which the TMO will reexamine the request. Substantive examination of the trademark application will not begin until the recordal is fully resolved.

Because these recordal events pause the trademark timeline, applicants seeking to benefit from the accelerated pathway should avoid initiating ownership changes during pendency. Where possible, applicants should complete any ownership updates or corporate restructuring before filing new applications or wait until after registration to record the changes.

The regulation also clarifies documentation requirements for assignment recordals.

Force Majeure Provisions

MOLR 5/2026 defines force majeure as circumstances such as war, revolution, riots, labor strikes, natural disasters, or other comparable emergencies that prevent an applicant from fulfilling filing requirements. This definition aligns with Constitutional Court Decision No. 144/PUU XXI/2023, issued on July 30, 2024.

Force majeure relief does not waive substantive obligations; it merely suspends the timeframe for meeting them. All applicable fees and formalities continue to apply, and once the emergency ends, the applicant must promptly provide the outstanding materials.

The regulation establishes a mechanism for requesting additional time when a force majeure event disrupts compliance. Applicants or their attorneys may petition the Minister of Law or the TMO for extended deadlines across a wide array of procedures, including original filings, perfection of priority claims, change‑of‑name or address recordals for pending applications, assignments or transfers of pending applications, renewals, postregistration changes of owner details, and transfers of rights to registered marks. This mechanism allows the TMO to pause deadlines related to missing documentation until the emergency subsides and the applicant is able to complete the requirements.

Changes to Collective Trademarks

MOLR 5/2026 tightens eligibility and expands procedural requirements for collective trademarks. Collective trademark applications must now be filed only by collective entities, such as groups, associations, cooperatives, or other recognized collective organizations. The government may also file collective marks to support micro, small, and medium enterprise (MSME) development or public services.

This differs from the previous framework, which did not expressly restrict who could apply. By narrowing this broad eligibility, the new regulation redefines collective marks as assets that must be held by a genuine collective body.

The longstanding prohibition on licensing collective trademarks to third parties remains. However, MOLR 5/2026 clarifies an important practical pathway. A nonmember wishing to use the collective mark may do so by joining the collective community.

A key unresolved issue concerns existing collective trademarks held by companies rather than true collective entities; the regulation does not specify how the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) will reconcile these cases with the new requirements. For owners in such a position, the prudent approach may be to consider migrating to standard trademarks, supplemented by licensing arrangements, if that structure better reflects the commercial reality.

Other Notable Changes

MOLR 5/2026 optimizes the Ministry of Law regional offices as local assisted-filing gateways that accept non-electronic documents at service counters and enter them into the DGIP’s online system. The actions the regional offices can assist with include applications, recordals, renewals, and obtaining excerpts, and their assistance in these matters is limited to local individuals and MSMEs.

Additionally, the new filing checklist under MOLR 5/2026 recognizes several identity card types as acceptable forms of applicant identification for both domestic and foreign applicants. These types include identity cards, limited stay permit cards (KITAS), permanent stay permit cards (KITAP), and child identity cards (KIA). Legal entities filing trademark applications are now required to attach a certified copy of the company’s articles of association (bylaws).

The inclusion of the KIA is unusual because it is issued to children under 18, who generally lack legal capacity to independently engage in binding legal acts. A trademark registration creates exclusive and enforceable property rights against third parties—fundamentally different from administrative documents like passports, which merely certify identity and are commonly issued to minors. This framework could lead to disputes in which trademark rights are asserted or challenged against a minor’s registration, raising procedural and ethical complications that run counter to the regulation’s aim of creating greater speed, structure, and legal certainty.

Conclusion

MOLR 5/2026 is a significant recalibration of Indonesia’s trademark system, pairing accelerated timelines with more structured procedural safeguards. Its system of expedited timelines is a positive development that aligns well with Indonesia’s rapidly expanding investment landscape and demonstrates a strong commitment to administrative efficiency and responsiveness. At the same time, it remains important to ensure that the pace of examination continues to support a thorough and reliable review process so that the quality of outcomes is consistently maintained.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More