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​ 

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
March 10, 2026
Indonesia’s trademark prosecution process has been significantly streamlined with Ministry of Law Regulation No. 5 of 2026 (MOLR 5/2026) coming into effect on February 23, 2026. In straightforward cases without opposition, applicants may now see their trademarks proceed to registration within three months from filing—a substantial improvement over previous practice. The regulation also introduces detailed procedures for recording changes of name and address and for transferring rights over pending applications. It enhances the role of the Ministry of Law’s regional offices in assisting local individuals and SMEs, adds provisions governing force majeure situations, implements new requirements for collective trademarks, and formalizes several practices already in place. Substantive Examination Acceleration The most significant change under MOLR 5/2026 concerns substantive examination. The regulation now explicitly requires that applications be published within 15 days of filing, followed by a two-month publication period. Oppositions must be filed only within this window; late submissions will not be processed, even if the system accepts payment. The new regulation requires the Trademark Office (TMO) to forward copies of any opposition to applicants within 14 days of receipt. If no opposition is filed, substantive examination begins immediately after the publication period ends and will be completed within 30 days. If an opposition is filed, the examination is to be finalized within 90 days of the counterstatement filing date. These timelines enable unopposed applications to move from close of publication to final decision in roughly one month. If an application is provisionally refused during ex officio examination, the applicant has 30 working days from the date of notification to file a response. However, the regulation does not specify the timeline for subsequent reexamination after the response is filed. In recent practice, the TMO has been completing reexamination within approximately two to three months. Ownership Recordals May Pause Substantive
Read More
March 6, 2026
Myanmar’s Trademark Law 2019 introduced a modern framework for the registration, enforcement, and protection of trademarks. However, due to the high volume of applications filed during the soft-opening period of the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), marks submitted from 2022 onward remain pending as the IPD works its way through the applications filed in 2021, which it has been publishing on a monthly basis since May 1, 2024. During this period, businesses should adopt proactive strategies to protect their brands, monitor conflicting marks, and ensure a smooth registration process. Practical Steps for Safeguarding Pending Marks While a pending application does not confer full trademark rights, brand owners can take several practical steps to strengthen their position: Monitor IPD publications. Businesses should regularly review the IPD’s monthly gazette to identify any identical or confusingly similar marks at an early stage and prepare timely oppositions in accordance with the Trademark Law’s provisions allowing “any interested party” to file an objection to a trademark application. Monitor market activity. Early detection of potential infringement enables swift action, such as cease-and-desist letters and opposition proceedings. Businesses should monitor competitors, distributors, and retailers for unauthorized use of their marks. Collect evidence of use. Maintaining evidence of use strengthens claims of distinctiveness and supports enforcement efforts. Businesses should keep records of commercial activities, distribution, brand promotion and development, marketing communications, product packaging and labeling, and sales demonstrating brand recognition in Myanmar and internationally, particularly in Southeast Asian markets. Although the Trademark Law 2019 establishes a first-to-file system, evidence of use provides considerable practical support for distinctiveness claims and enforcement actions. Pursue Interim Enforcement Options. A pending trademark application can be relied upon to oppose or refuse other marks on absolute and/or relative grounds of refusal. In addition, marks with established reputations may be protected under passing-off principles
Read More