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

February 14, 2019

A Look Back on the First Year of the Madrid Protocol in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On October 2, 2017, Indonesia officially became the hundredth country to accede to the Madrid Protocol, which came into effect a few months later, on January 2, 2018. Following accession to the protocol, Indonesia issued Government Regulation No. 22 of 2018 on Registration of International Trademarks under the Madrid Protocol (GR No.22/2018), effective June 6, 2018, which set the requirements for two categories of applications:

  1. International applications with Indonesia as an office of origin; and,
  2. International registrations with Indonesia as a designated contracting party.

International applications with Indonesia as an office of origin

Under GR No.22/2018, an international application with Indonesia as an office of origin must be based on either a basic application or existing registration in Indonesia, and must be filed with the Indonesian Trademark Office (ITO). The trademark office will validate and certify those applications within five days of receipt, and forward them to the International Bureau within two months of receipt.

International registration with Indonesia as a designated country

Similar to an international application, an international registration must be accompanied by a basic application or proof of registration. The International Bureau (IB) will forward a notification of any international registration that designates Indonesia as a contracting country to the ITO, which will then publish it for two months, during which time any third party may file an opposition. Any oppositions received will then be considered during the substantive examination stage, which begins at the end of two-month publication period.

The result of the substantive examination must be forwarded to the IB within 18 months from the date of receipt of the notification. If protection in Indonesia is approved, the ITO will notify the IB, issue a registration certificate, and publish a notification of registration in the Indonesian Trademark Gazette.

If protection is rejected, the ITO will issue a rejection notice to the international applicant and inform the IB of its reasons. The international applicant may file a response against a preliminary rejection within 30 days from the delivery date. The response must be written in Bahasa Indonesia and can only be filed by proxy through a local attorney. If a permanent rejection notice is issued as a result of the response, the applicant can appeal to the Trademark Appeal Commission, by proxy, as a last resort. The commission will inform the ITO of its decision, the ITO will inform the IB, and the IB will inform the applicant.

If the basic application or registration underpinning an international registration is cancelled within five years of the international registration (known as the dependency period), the holder of the international registration may file a transformation request within three months from the date of that termination. Any transformation of an international registration protected in Indonesia will be recorded and published in the Indonesian Trademark Gazette. If transformation is requested for an international registration that has applied for protection in Indonesia, but has not yet been granted it, the ITO will continue the trademark prosecution process.

GR No.22/2018 also stipulates that national registration can be replaced by an international registration if it meets certain requirements. An application for replacement should be addressed to the ITO, which will notify the IB if all the requirements are met.

Observations and Issues that have Emerged

The Madrid Protocol is designed to be a one-size-fits-all scheme that is thought to make the filing process simpler, and is undoubtedly beneficial for trademark owners when it comes to protecting their marks in multiple countries—especially in regards to cost effectiveness. However, in practice, it is not as straightforward as it may seem, and international registration holders are required to deal with a number of practical issues throughout the protocol’s trademark prosecution process, many of which require liaison with the ITO.

The most common problem encountered arises when grounds for rejection, stated in a rejection notice, are unclear. When such an issue occurs, it is usually necessary to make a direct visit to the ITO to inquire about the actual legal grounds used to determine the rejection. 

Another issue that may occur concerns the deletion of covered goods or services. Within the past year there have been several cases in which the ITO issued a notice stipulating the deletion of covered goods or services—a notice against which no response can be filed. The most common reason for deletion is that the ITO finds that the goods or services do not belong in the class for which the applied mark is asking protection. These situations are a huge inconvenience, particularly if the deleted goods or services are essential. Although not an ideal solution, one feasible workaround to ensure protection is to file a new national trademark application for deleted goods or services, incurring the costs and delays that the process entails.

Thirdly, all international registrations are published in the ITO’s Madrid Protocol Gazette—a different publication than the reliable gazette used for marks filed through the national trademark filing system. We have found that the specimen of the international registration’s mark published in the Madrid Protocol Gazette may differ from the actual specimen. This can cause great confusion, and a direct inquiry to the ITO might be required in order to solve the issue.

Since the accession to the Madrid Protocol, Indonesia has seen an increased number of filed oppositions, believed to correspond to the filing of thousands of international registrations designating Indonesia as one of the countries to which protections should be extended. The ITO has also been stricter on the accuracy of every application submitted, and any error in a registration, regardless of how slight it may be or which administrative authority it was caused by, may have to be dealt with at the ITO. Therefore, trademark holders should anticipate the possible occurrence of the issues above prior to filing an international registration, and budget accordingly.

The rationale behind Indonesia joining the Madrid System was to simplify the trademark application process for holders of local trademarks, in order open access to wider protection. However, according to the ITO, as of January 16, 2019, less than 50 international applications stating Indonesia as an office of origin have been filed, amounting to 0.5% of the total. On the other hand, about 6,500 international registration have been filed with Indonesia selected as a designated country. With that in mind, a long road remains ahead of Indonesia to achieve the original rationale.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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