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

January 17, 2023

Indonesia’s New Criminal Code and Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Updates

Indonesia’s new Criminal Code was passed by Parliament on December 6, 2022, and ratified by the president and promulgated on January 2, 2023, as Law No. 1 of 2023. The new Criminal Code will take effect after three years (i.e., January 2, 2026) and is a complete overhaul of the previous version, much of which was based on Dutch law drafted during the colonial period. The Criminal Code currently in effect (sometimes referred to by the initials KUHP after its Indonesian name), dates from 1918 and was codified and unified in 1946 following Indonesia’s independence the year before.

Much of the news surrounding the new Criminal Code has focused on certain controversial passages in the new code, including articles that criminalize insulting the president, cohabitation, blasphemy, and sex outside of marriage, and limit the right to protest. Under the new Criminal Code, anyone found to have violated these provisions could be imprisoned for a period ranging from a few months to a few years.

Apart from the more controversial provisions, several articles in the new Criminal Code relate to intellectual property (IP). IP owners should be aware of these provisions in order to avoid committing punishable acts and to understand the criminal enforcement options for their IP rights. The most relevant parts of the law are discussed below.

Trademark and Branding Infringement

Under the new Criminal Code, the misuse of marks on goods or packaging is punishable by up to four years in prison or a maximum fine of IDR 500 million (approx. USD 32,735), possibly including indemnity. This misuse covers various acts of wrongfully affixing marks on goods or packaging—such as when a counterfeiter makes use of fake or unauthorized branding to falsely imply that goods are genuine. Prosecution of these criminal acts can only commence based on a complaint from the owner of the trademark at issue.

These new offenses under the Criminal Code are in addition to existing prohibitions on unauthorized use of another party’s trademark, which are found in Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographic Indications. Under this law, use of a mark that is identical or substantially similar to the registered mark of another party for similar goods or services is punishable by a fine of up to IDR 2 billion (approx. USD 130,940), imprisonment for up to four or five years (depending on the degree of similarity between the marks), or both.

While these existing provisions enable enforcement against trademark infringement through criminal proceedings, many trademark owners avoid filing criminal complaints against infringers and instead prefer to pursue alternative dispute resolution methods because it is less costly. However, if parties cannot reach an agreement during settlement negotiations, the case may progress to criminal proceedings in court.

Falsely Asserting Ownership of IP

Under the new Criminal Code, knowingly giving false testimony under oath (or otherwise of legal consequence) is punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years. Being convicted of this criminal offense may also result in revocation of various civil and political rights—including the right to vote.

This prohibition may apply to both IP prosecution and in IP-related court proceedings. For example, signing a declaration of ownership (for IP registration purposes) if the IP is similar to or copies the IP of another party may be deemed giving false testimony. Similarly, signing a declaration of use (for trademark renewal purposes) when the owner has not actually made use of the trademark may also expose the owner to accusations of giving false testimony.

Disclosure of Trade Secrets

Disclosure of an employer’s specialized information is a punishable criminal offense under the new Criminal Code, and a complaint from a company’s management is the starting point for prosecution of such an act. Those who are found to have disclosed secret specialized matters regarding a company where they work or have worked may face imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to IDR 50 million (approx. USD 3,274).

These provisions are intended to prevent unfair competition in the business world. Thus, the disclosure of specialized matters mentioned in the code can be interpreted as referring to dissemination of things that could lead to unfair business practices. This includes information that is not supposed to be publicly disclosed, such as company secrets and trade secrets.

Law No. 30 of 2000 on Trade Secrets states that something can be categorized as a trade secret (and thus can be used as the basis for a criminal report) if the information:

  • is not known by the public;
  • is in the field of technology or business;
  • has economic value; and
  • is kept confidential by the owner of the trade secret.

These provisions in the new Criminal Code are inseparable from provisions of Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. These stipulations prohibit business actors from conspiring with others to obtain competitors’ company secrets that can enable unfair business competition. However, these provisions specifically discuss competing “business actors” who try to obtain competitors’ confidential information rather than the individuals who disclose it, while the relevant provisions of the new Criminal Code expand criminal liability to individuals who provide or distribute such information to competing business actors.

Integration with Indonesian Law

Both the current Criminal Code and the new version stipulate that specific statutory provisions (e.g., those found in the Laws on Trademarks, Trade Secrets, Unfair Business Competition, etc.) prevail over the Criminal Code if there is any discrepancy. This means that if a criminal act is regulated by multiple laws, the applicable provisions in the specific laws take precedence over the Criminal Code’s provisions that apply to that same act. However, the provisions discussed above add some important clarity and expand some criminal offenses, so IP owners should take them into consideration when deciding on IP prosecution or enforcement strategy. This can help with anticipating risks of criminal punishment, as well as understanding the tools available for IP enforcement or litigation.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
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