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

November 22, 2016

Indonesia’s Amended Trademark Law: Major Change to Opposition Process

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Indonesian Parliament approved amendments to Indonesia’s Trademark Law on October 27 this year. Indonesia’s amended Trademark Law will take effect on or before November 26, 2016, introducing a number of significant changes to the publication and substantive examination stages, among other things.

Under the new law, there is now a two-month publication stage before examiners conduct the substantive examination of a trademark application. All trademarks that pass an initial formality examination will proceed directly to publication and will be open to potential oppositions. This change is intended to lessen the burden on examiners by allowing them to review any oppositions at the same time as conducting the substantive examination on confusingly similar trademarks and matters of distinctiveness.

Examiners are still obligated to, on their own initiative, reject a bad-faith or confusingly similar application during the substantive examination stage. As applications will be published before they are substantively examined, time will not be wasted by “reexamining” marks when oppositions are filed. Prior to the amendments, an examiner who examined an application also had to review any oppositions that were filed during the publication stage, which took place after the substantive examination stage.

Under this change, the only opportunity that trademark owners have to oppose a third party’s application is during the two-month publication stage. While this push for greater efficiency is laudable, all examinations will fall within examiners’ subjective discretion, which may lead to unpredictable outcomes.

Although the specific impact of this procedural change remains uncertain, it is possible that the new opposition process may result in more bad-faith applications. This is especially problematic in Indonesia, where trademark squatters are already a major issue. Unless trademark owners have in place an effective system for monitoring trademarks in local publications, bad-faith applications may escape through to registration.

In order to manage risk, trademark owners should pay considerably more attention to monitoring published trademarks that may be confusingly similar to their own trademarks, so that they can file oppositions in time to protect their own rights. Trademark owners can do this by supporting their oppositions with relevant evidence for the examiner’s consideration. In Indonesia, it is particularly important for trademark owners to proactively defend their rights during the opposition process because once a confusingly similar mark has been successfully registered, the only recourse available is to proceed with invalidation/cancellation through the Court of Commerce—a procedure that is costly and complicated.

While the new approach to the publication and opposition process is by far the most notable change, Indonesia’s new Trademark Law will introduce a number of other changes to existing provisions. Notably, there will now be a six-month grace period for renewal of a trademark after expiration. In addition, the new Trademark Law will introduce provisions on nontraditional marks and the Madrid Protocol, and it will clarify certain procedures such as the process of obtaining a preliminary injunction. These changes appear to be a step in the right direction to developing clearer and more effective trademark protection and enforcement in the country.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 31, 2026
Vietnam’s most recent amendment of the Law on Intellectual Property (amended IP Law), passed by the National Assembly on December 10, 2025, and effective from April 1, 2026, represents one of the most significant updates to the IP Law in recent years. This amendment modernizes the IP framework, moving a step closer to international standards, while addressing the realities of Vietnam’s booming digital economy, e-commerce growth, and increasing foreign investment, which is crucial for Vietnam’s objective of complete economic transformation. For trademark practitioners, brand owners, and businesses, the changes are largely positive, as they promise faster processes, stronger enforcement tools—especially for online actions—and better commercialization options. However, they also introduce stricter requirements and a need for proactive preparation. Below are some of the most noteworthy changes in the amended IP Law related to trademarks. Significantly Shortened Timelines and Introduction of Fast-Track Examination The statutory timelines under the amended IP Law have been notably reduced: Substantive examination for trademarks is shortened from 9 months to 5 months (from the publication date). The publication period is shortened from 2 months to 1 month. A new fast-track mechanism allows substantive examination in as little as 3 months for qualifying applications (e.g., marks in actual use, facing infringement threats, or meeting government-specified criteria; details to be clarified in implementing regulations). The opposition period is shortened from 5 months to 3 months from publication. This is arguably the most welcome change. Vietnam’s IP Office has long faced criticism for lengthy backlogs, often stretching the trademark registration process to 18–24 months or more. The new timelines bring Vietnam closer to efficient systems. The fast-track option is particularly smart for high-value or urgent cases such as counterfeit threats on e-commerce platforms. However, careful preparation is mandatory for flawless applications from the start to maximize fast-track eligibility.
Read More
March 16, 2026
Indonesia’s Ministry of Law has introduced a new framework for patent applications that tightens filing requirements and introduces formal mechanisms for accelerated examination. Minister of Law Regulation No. 6 of 2026 on Patent Applications, which was issued on January 13, 2026, and took effect on February 23, 2026, serves as the implementing regulation for Law No. 65 of 2024 on Patents. It replaces the previous patent application framework (under Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 38 of 2018, as amended by Regulation No. 13 of 2021), which was considered no longer aligned with current legal, institutional, and technological developments. The regulation also reflects the institutional restructuring of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights into the Ministry of Law. Patent applications filed on or after February 23, 2026, must fully comply with the new regulation. Applications that were filed before this date will continue to be examined and processed under the previous regulation, pursuant to transitional provisions. Substantive Changes Definition of Invention The definition of “Invention” now explicitly includes systems, methods, and uses, in addition to products and processes. This expansion creates broader protection opportunities, particularly for software-enabled, digital, and method-based technologies, although it may also result in closer scrutiny during substantive examination. Excess Claims Fee Excess claims fees must now be paid at the time of filing. Failure to pay excess claims fees at filing results in the application being deemed withdrawn. There is no longer an option to defer payment to the substantive examination stage. This amendment forces applicants to face higher upfront costs. Patent claim strategy must be finalized prior to filing, reducing flexibility at later stages. Procedural and System Changes Fully Electronic Filing Patent applications must be filed electronically via the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) online filing system. Assisted filings to
Read More
March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More