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

July 24, 2026

Indonesia’s New IP Fee Schedule Signals Greater Focus on IP as Commercial Assets

Subscribe to Updates

Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026.

Key Takeaways

GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years.

GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia.

Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation

For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It also adds a specific service type for deletion of copyright recordation by the creator, copyright holder, or related-rights owner. Music, entertainment, and digital-content businesses should consider whether the new exemption affects their recordation strategy in Indonesia.

Trademarks: Significantly Higher Fees across Common Services

As fees for trademark-related services haven’t changed since 2016, GR 30/2026 introduces increases of roughly 55–60%. Trademark owners should expect higher fees for several common services, including general filings, timely and late renewals, oppositions, appeals, recordation of transfers, and recordation of trademark license agreements. GR 30/2026 retains preferential treatment for micro and small enterprises.

Madrid Protocol: WIPO-Linked Tariff Treatment and Higher Local Administrative Fees

For Madrid Protocol matters, GR 30/2026 provides that international trademark registration fees are determined in accordance with WIPO rules and include international banking or payment transaction costs, in line with applicable practice. It also increases certain local administrative fees, including for transformation, replacement, and international applications originating from Indonesia.

The transformation of an international trademark into a national trademark, for instance, increased by approximately 40%; replacement of a national trademark with an international trademark increases by approximately 180%; and the administrative fee for an international trademark registration application originating from. Indonesia, which increases by 50%.

Patents: Core Fees Largely Retained, New Procedural Tariffs Added

GR 30/2026 preserves several core patent-filing and annual-fee structures from GR 45/2024, including differentiated treatment for patent and simple patent filings by microenterprises, small enterprises, educational institutions, and government research and development institutions. It also adds or clarifies fees for substantive examination, substantive reexamination, appeals of substantive reexamination results, and priority-right extensions.

The reexamination fees are particularly notable, as their issuance now brings into effect the reexamination provisions that had been introduced in the recently amended Patent Law but had not come into effect pending implementation guidance.

Geographical Indications: Separate Listing and Higher Registration Fees

GR 30/2026 separates geographical indications from trademarks in the fee schedule and increases the fee for geographical indication registration compared with GR 45/2024. Other geographical indication services are now listed separately, including changes to application data, objections, appeals, official extracts, deletion, and recordation of use.

New IP Enforcement Fees

GR 30/2026 introduces a dedicated IP enforcement subcategory covering requests submitted by any party for website-takedown recommendations, in accordance with Ministry Regulation No. 47 of 2025 on the Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems. The introduction of this fee is intended to support and expedite the processing of website-takedown requests and mediation applications. These fees are therefore particularly relevant for rights holders considering administrative enforcement measures against allegedly infringing websites or pursuing dispute resolution through mediation.

IP-Backed Financing: Fiduciary Security over IP Rights Objects

One of the most notable additions for financing transactions is the fee category for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. Although GR 30/2026 is a fee regulation rather than a comprehensive secured-transactions statute, the new category is relevant to banks, fintech lenders, borrowers, and investors structuring credit support around IP assets or IP-related cash flows. Parties to IP-backed financing should continue to conduct due diligence on ownership, registration status, chain of title, existing encumbrances, license restrictions, remaining term of protection, valuation assumptions, and enforcement mechanics. The new fee category does not resolve issues such as priority, foreclosure mechanics, valuation methodology, or contractual restrictions on assignment or security over licensed IP.

Practical Implications for Businesses

Businesses with IP portfolios in Indonesia should map pending and planned filings, renewals, recordals, and enforcement steps against the effective date of August 1, 2026. Rights holders should update internal cost schedules and client-facing fee estimates for trademark, geographical indication, Madrid Protocol-related, copyright, patent, and enforcement services. While GR 30/2026 does not fundamentally alter substantive requirements for obtaining, maintaining, enforcing, or using IP rights, it changes the official cost environment in which those activities occur. More broadly, it seems to indicate a more commercially focused approach toward IP rights and their value.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More