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 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
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