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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More