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​ 

September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More