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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
Read More