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

May 30, 2022

Indonesia’s Ongoing Struggle Against IP Infringement Offline and Online

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

The Indonesian government has launched a number of strategic initiatives aimed at getting the country removed from the Priority Watch List in the US Trade Representative’s annual Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Protection. In trying to leave behind this ignominious status—which has been stubbornly persistent for over 30 years—Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) is leading an IP Operations Task Force consisting of five ministries and agencies, including the National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM), Customs, the State Police, and the Ministry of Communications and Information (MOCI).

According to statistics from the task force, 554 infringement cases were handled by the police and the IP Office in 2019–2021, with trademark infringement and copyright infringement being most prevalent. Year on year, the number of trademark infringement cases increased from 90 in 2020 to 137 in 2021, while copyright infringement cases over the same period decreased slightly, from 42 to 38.

While the cases occurring in physical markets remain high, the battleground has now expanded to online platforms and social media. Indonesia has embraced digital technology with enthusiasm, and the country’s citizens are among the world’s most avid users of e-commerce, social media, and other mobile apps. Research from Google, Temasek, and Bain & Company indicates sizable growth in Indonesia’s digital economy, from USD 47 billion in 2020 to USD 70 billion in 2021—a digital marketplace that now includes more than 158 million e-commerce customers.

Separately, the MOCI reported suspension of 1,745 websites and other infringing online content from 2017 to 2019. Meanwhile, the DGIP banned hundreds of problematic e-commerce portals related to trademark infringement during 2019. There is no official report on recent online infringement cases; however, the numbers are predicted to rise in tandem with the increasing use of online platforms.

Aside from these enforcement actions, authorities in Indonesia have been taking other steps to strengthen IP protection. For example, the Indonesian National Police joined various online platforms in signing a memorandum of understanding that enables greater cooperation in fighting online IP infringement. The government has also prepared a forthcoming technical regulation addressing online copyright infringement, and has instituted a program to issue IP-based certifications to both physical and online shops.

Several laws and other measures that manage the growth of electronic platforms also include provisions on online IP infringement, such as Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions, Government Regulation No. 71 of 2019 concerning the Implementation of Electronic Systems and Transactions, and MOCI Regulation No. 5 of 2020 concerning Electronic System Operators in the Private Sector.

Safe Harbor Policy vs. “Landlord Liability Doctrine”

In 2016, the MOCI issued a circular letter on the limitations and responsibilities of e-commerce platform providers and merchants in relation to user-generated content. This became known as the “safe harbor policy.” In summary, the policy states that platforms are not liable for failure to comply with the country’s safe harbor policy in the event of force majeure, error, or negligence on the part of a user. Under the policy, a platform is only held responsible for prohibited content if they are unable to prove that a user was responsible for uploading the content. The policy also obliges platforms to include a mechanism that allows users to report illegal goods and services, after which the platform must take down the offending pages or content as soon as possible.

The takedown request system, however, has been found lacking against repeated or large-scale infringement, as IP owners need to proactively check each platform for infringing content and file takedown requests with detailed URLs when instances are found. Moreover, there is no significant action to ensure that infringers who have been previously punished are permanently banned from creating new accounts once their user access is blocked. In addition, a takedown will only be completed if the IP owner holds an Indonesian IP registration certificate.

Frustrated by continuous infringement, IP owners and related parties have increasingly demanded that platforms be more proactive in tackling infringement instead of passively waiting for complaints.

In line with these concerns, the IP Operations Task Force has proposed the “landlord liability doctrine,” a system whereby e-commerce and other platforms would be certified as marketplaces containing genuine and authorized goods. Under the landlord liability doctrine, the task force asserts that online platforms, as “landlords,” have equal responsibilities to their users and are thus accountable for any infringement conducted by their users. This would also require individual sellers to own IP registration certificates before they are allowed to sell anything. The goal of this scheme would be to ensure that hosted products and content are authentic and do not infringe the IP of any authorized entity; however, this certification process would seemingly render third-party sellers unable to sell genuine products, meaning that only the official accounts would remain.

The task force, which has so far held several meetings on the proposed program, expressed that the platforms, as the landlords, bear responsibilities equal to those of their users. Thus, platforms are also accountable for any infringement conducted by their users. The plan has not yet been implemented as there is no formal regulation issued to accommodate this idea.

At the moment, it appears that the safe harbor policy and the proposed landlord liability doctrine contradict each other, and that the task force may not take the existing safe harbor policy into account in its development of the landlord liability doctrine. While there have not yet been any court rulings on this apparent discrepancy, there are two ongoing cases in which local IP holders filed lawsuits against platforms, which are alleged to bear more responsibility than the users for copyright infringement on their platforms. The results of these cases could indicate whether the so-called landlord liability approach will overturn the existing safe harbor policy.

Conclusion

While Indonesia’s fight against infringement is making progress, the government’s desire to be removed from the Priority Watch List seems to be a long way off. The challenges facing the IP Operations Task Force are still considerable—especially when it comes to online infringement.

Nevertheless, there are some practical approaches that could make a real contribution to IP enforcement in Indonesia—as suggested by the US Trade Representative during a meeting with the IP Operations Task Force in November 2021. The Indonesian government would do well to first focus their efforts in these areas, which include increasing raids of counterfeiters’ premises, stepping up their confiscation of goods, and disposal of evidence (e.g., confiscated goods) in enforcement proceedings. On the online front, it would be helpful to follow the shutting down of websites or online accounts with indictments to enable further prosecution and combat repeat infringement.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
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