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 2, 2020

Indonesian Language Requirements May Thwart Trademark Squatters

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On September 30, 2019, the Indonesian president, through an initiative of the Ministry of Education and Culture, issued Presidential Regulation No. 63 of 2019 regarding the Use of the Indonesian Language (PR 63). This regulation is the implementing rule of Law No. 24 of 2009 regarding National Flag, Language, Emblem, and National Anthem.     

This new regulation stipulates that the Indonesian language (Bahasa) is now obligatory as the official medium of instruction in all educational institutions in the country, from kindergartens to universities. It also broadens the range of use of Bahasa for various activities, including official documents, the naming of buildings, and speeches by state officials in both international and national forums. In particular, article 35 of PR 63 explicitly requires the use of Bahasa for trademarks owned by Indonesian citizens or entities (except for licensed foreign trademarks). Under this law, an Indonesian citizen would not be able to register a trademark in a foreign language.   

Several decisions issued by the Supreme Court over the years have expressed disallowance of the registration of any mark using foreign wordings by a local applicant. The issuance of PR 63, therefore, is a useful additional argument against trademark squatters.    

Trademark squatters—local parties that unrightfully register and possess well-known foreign marks—are not uncommon in Indonesia. The trademark system in Indonesia is first-to-file, meaning that protection of a mark is given to the applicant who files that mark first (and has their application for registration subsequently granted). Added with the broader discretion of examiners in conducting substantive examination of the mark, this system provides an opportunity for trademark squatters.

Trademark Law No. 20 of 2016, which is the current legislation governing trademarks, stipulates that all marks passing formality examination will proceed directly to publication for opposition purposes. Trademark owners are encouraged to proactively monitor the published marks and to file oppositions when necessary. Once an opposition is filed, it will be used as a consideration by the examiner in conducting a substantive examination. Otherwise, the examination result will depend solely on the examiner’s discretion.    

Other than arguing that a published application is confusingly similar or filed in bad faith, an opposition may be filed on the basis of absolute grounds stipulated in article 20 of the Trademark Law, which holds that the application will be rejected if it contradicts state ideology, lacks distinctiveness, contains elements that  may mislead the public as to quality, and so on. In this regard, the concerned trademark owner can now add PR 63 to their argument—a squatted trademark must be rejected as it violates article 20 of the Trademark Law, namely contradicting the statutory regulation.   

Although PR 63 has been officially enacted, many parties have raised objections. One of the biggest criticisms is that PR 63 seems unsuitable for the progressive business era we are now in, and may be a significant obstacle to investment. Several business associations and governmental bodies—including the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) itself—have recently agreed that the Ministry of Education and Culture will need to draft a further regulation to accommodate these objections.   

In terms of trademark applications, the DGIP has indicated that it may issue an announcement that PR 63 will not affect the trademark registration process. In this case, PR 63 would be considered a regulation related to use of the mark only. Thus, the examiner would not take PR 63 into consideration.    

Whether the DGIP will issue the notice, and their timeline for doing so, are not yet known. Moreover, in light of the objections, it seems unlikely that the examiner will use PR 63 as the sole grounds for refusal against an infringing application. However, it is still likely to be a persuasive tool, so at this moment it is recommended that trademark owners affected by squatters or similar issues mention PR 63 in their opposing arguments against similar marks.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More