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

August 29, 2017

Indonesia’s Amended Trademark Law: Implications of the New Publication Process

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Indonesia’s amended Trademark Law has been in force since November 25, 2016, and brings a number of substantive changes to the country’s trademark regime. Perhaps the most significant change relates to how trademarks are published, as this directly affects the entire portfolio management of a trademark owner.

New Approach to Trademark Publication

Under the old law, trademark publication takes place after the substantive examination stage and lasts for three months. Opposition can be filed during this time, and the trademark application will be reexamined based on the opposition. Under the new law, trademark publication takes place before  the substantive examination stage and lasts for two months.  When the application is examined, the examiner will also have information regarding any oppositions that may have been filed. This streamlined procedure eliminates the reexamination step and should, at least in theory, speed up the registration process.

Dual System of Trademark Prosecution

In order to transition from the old law into the new law, the Indonesian Trademark Office has implemented a dual system of trademark prosecution under which applications filed before November 25, 2016, are prosecuted according to the old law, and applications filed on or after November 25, 2016, are prosecuted according to the new law. Thus, each route has its own publication procedure—applications under the old law are being published after they have already been substantively examined, while applications under the new law are being published when they have yet to be substantively examined.

Increase in Number of Publications

Based on information from the Trademark Office, the number of publications in Indonesia has increased significantly from 2016 to 2017. For the full 12 months of 2016, 49,830 applications were published. Whereas for January to June of 2017, 62,277 applications have been published under both the old law and the new law.

Implications for Trademark Applicants

The publication period provides the opportunity to file opposition against a trademark application.  With the shortening of the publication period from three months to two months, it is prudent for trademark owners to keep watch on publications and promptly file an opposition upon finding similar marks. Once this time frame has passed, there is no chance for an opposition to be filed, and the only other possibility would be to file for a cancelation of the trademark with the Commercial Court, which is more costly and time-consuming. 

Additionally, according to the Ministerial Regulation No. 67 of 2016, if the owner of a well-known mark would like the examiner to refuse a trademark application in an unrelated class based on the similarity to the well-known mark, the owner of the well-known mark must file an opposition.

Importantly, the deadline to submit an opposition will depend on which trademark law the publication in question falls under, since the two types of publications run in parallel under both laws. An interesting issue has thus presented itself under this type of parallel publication in the form of uncertainty over who has better rights in regard to a priority claim.

Trademark publications that are published according to the new law do not necessarily have confirmation on whether or not priority can be claimed because the priority document can be submitted up to three months from the filing date. However, the new law also states that a trademark application should be published within 15 days from the application filing date, according to Article 14. Thus, there is a gap between the publication date and the deadline to submit a priority document.

For example, a trademark application with no priority claim could have been filed on June 30, 2017, and published on July 14, 2017, under the new law. Separately, another applicant could have filed an application on July 1, 2017, for a trademark with a priority claim date of February 1, 2017, and that application could also be published on July 14, 2017. Since the priority document may not yet have been submitted at the time of publication, there is uncertainty as to which applicant has the better right. It is possible for prior right to be determined later during substantive examination, as the priority document should have already been submitted at that time.

With the issues presented by the new law, it is more crucial than ever for trademark applicants to pay attention to the publications process. If an applicant finds that a published trademark application is similar to their own mark, they should file an opposition even if the opposed mark has a priority date prior to their own mark because priority right may not have been established yet during publication. During substantive examination, if the examiner determines that priority cannot be claimed for an opposed mark, the applicant will have the better right as long as their mark has an earlier application date.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More