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​ 

August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More