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, 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