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 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
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