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

January 24, 2023

Intellectual Property License Agreements and Copyrights in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates

Indonesia’s current Trademark, Patent, Industrial Design, and Copyright Laws require all intellectual property (IP) license agreements to be recorded in order to have binding force for third parties. Since the enactment of Government Regulation No. 36 of 2018 on Recordation of IP License Agreements (GR 36/2018), recordation of IP license agreements has been carried out by Indonesia’s Directorate-General of Intellectual Property (DGIP).

Even before the issuance of GR 36/2018, the DGIP had started receiving applications for recordation of IP license agreements after the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (MOLHR) issued an IP recordation implementing regulation under MOLHR Regulation No. 8 of 2016 on Requirements and Procedures for Recordation of IP License Agreements. However, as the mechanism for processing such applications had not been determined by the DGIP, the department left the requests unprocessed until the issuance of GR 36/2018. Prior to that, the preferred alternative was to file a letter of intention to record the license agreement with the DGIP so that related parties could rely on the letter in the absence of a regulation.

This article outlines the general requirements for IP license recordation in Indonesia and considers how the current system works with the country’s laws and regulatory environment for copyrights—particularly the necessity to obtain proof of copyright ownership prior to recording a copyright license agreement.

Overview of IP License Agreements

As noted above, IP license agreements must be recorded in order to be binding for third parties. License agreements that are not recorded will not have legal effect against third parties, although they are still legally binding for the contracting parties. For an IP license agreement to be eligible for recordation under GR 36/2018, it must meet the following main requirements:

  • The licensor must not grant a license if the term of protection of the relevant IP has lapsed or if the relevant IP registration has been withdrawn;
  • The license agreement must be written in Indonesian language or accompanied by a translation for the DGIP; and
  • The agreement cannot include provisions that may harm Indonesia’s economy or national interests, result in unfair business competition, or conflict with prevailing laws, religion, morality, or public order.

The regulation also specifies that IP license agreements should include the following elements:

  • Date, month, year, and location of the signing of the license agreement;
  • Name and address of the licensor and licensee;
  • Object of the license agreement;
  • Provision on whether the license is exclusive or nonexclusive, including whether sublicensing is permissible;
  • Duration of the license agreement;
  • Territorial scope of the license agreement; and
  • For patent licenses, which party will make annuity payments.

If the licensor or licensee is a foreign national or a foreign entity domiciled outside Indonesia, the recordation application has to be filed through a local registered IP consultant.

Copyright Protection and Recordation in Indonesia

Like in most countries, copyright protection in Indonesia arises automatically as soon as a work exists or is created, in accordance with the Copyright Law. Although it is not mandatory to record copyright, a certification of copyright recordation can be useful for establishing preliminary proof of copyright ownership (i.e., prima facie evidence) in the event of enforcement and disputes.

Proof of copyright ownership—in the form of a copyright certificate—is also required for recording a copyright license agreement, in accordance with the requirements of GR 36/2018. This means that if a copyright work has not yet been recorded at the DGIP, it is necessary to record the copyright work before recording a copyright license agreement referring to that work.

Fortunately, obtaining such a certificate has become considerably easier in recent years. On December 20, 2021, the DGIP issued a decision with the aim of accelerating the copyright recordation process. Decision No. HKI-05.TI.03.02 of 2021 on Implementation of Automatic Approval in Copyright Recordation System officially established the POP-HC (from the Indonesian name Persetujuan Otomatis Pencatatan) system, which reduces processing time for an application for recordation of copyright from 14 working days to 10 minutes. The system simplifies the recordation application process by automating the usually lengthy bureaucratic process, and it issues a copyright certificate in electronic form.

POP-HC makes it easier for the public to obtain protection for a copyright work, in line with the principle of copyright protection arising automatically from the moment the work comes into existence. The system also makes it possible for licensors and licensees to file a registration for a copyright that has not been recorded—plus the license agreement recordation application—in just one day. Previously, the licensor and licensee had to wait for days for the copyright certificate to be issued.

Recommendations

In summary, although the Copyright Law states that recordation is not a requirement to obtain copyrights or related rights, recordation of a copyright license agreement requires proof of copyright ownership in the form of a copyright certificate. Therefore, parties who intend to file a copyright license agreement in Indonesia pertaining to a copyright work that has not yet been recorded should record the work with the DGIP. With the tools now provided by the DGIP, this is a fast and relatively simple process that can be handled even on the same day as submitting the license recordation application.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
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