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​ 

July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
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