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​ 

July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More