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​ 

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
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More