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 29, 2017

New Regulation Clarifies Procedures Under Indonesia’s Amended Trademark Law

Informed Counsel

Indonesia recently enacted a regulation as part of the process for implementing its new Trademark Law, Law No. 20 of 2016 on Marks. Effective since February 1, 2017, “Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 67 of 2016 on Trademark Registration” sets out several key points under Indonesia’s new trademark law system.

The regulation simplifies the formality requirements for trademark registration and renewal, sets out clear criteria for recognition of a well-known mark, provides for the possibility of refusal of a trademark application due to an existing well-known mark for unrelated goods or services, and allows for assignment of trademark applications. This article will provide details of the new procedures.

Formality Requirements for Registration and Renewal

Indonesia follows the “first-to-file” trademark system. Therefore, the filing date of an application is very important, as it reflects the prior rights of the applicant. In the past, the filing date was obtained only when the formality documents (including Power of Attorney and Statement of Mark Ownership) were provided at the time of application filing. Late filing of these documents was not possible at the Indonesian Trademark Office.

This practice has been changed by Article 4, paragraph 1 of the new regulation, which stipulates that the minimum requirements to obtain a filing date are the trademark application, the specimen of the mark, and the bank payment slip for the trademark application fee. An applicant then has up to 30 days from the filing date to proceed with late filing of the formality requirements. An additional late filing period is available for priority documents, which can be submitted up to three months after the deadline to file the trademark application with priority claim, according to Article 11, paragraph 1.

The new regulation also simplifies the formality requirements for trademark renewals, with Article 24 omitting the requirement to submit a copy of the trademark certificate.

Criteria for Well-Known Marks

The previous Trademark Law introduced the concept of well-known trademarks, but it was vague about the criteria to qualify as a well-known mark. This issue has been addressed by Article 18, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the new regulation, which states that the determination about whether a mark is well known will depend on the following aspects of the mark:

  • Level of knowledge or recognition of the public toward the mark in the concerned business field;
  • Volume of sales of goods or services and benefits obtained from use of the mark by its owner;
  • Market share of goods or services under the mark;
  • Geographic coverage;
  • Time period of usage;
  • Amount of promotion, including the value of the investment used for the campaign;
  • Registrations or applications in other countries;
  • Level of success of law enforcement for the mark, particularly recognition as a well-known mark by regulatory authorities;
  • Inherent value of the mark acquired due to its reputation and quality assurance of goods or services protected by the mark.

Trademark owners will welcome the clarity provided by these new criteria, which should encourage more applicants to seek well-known status.

Refusal Based on Well-Known Mark

The regulation provides for the possibility that an Examiner can refuse a trademark application on the basis that it is identical or confusingly similar to an existing well-known mark for unrelated goods or services. To effect a refusal on these grounds, the owner of the well-known mark must file an official opposition against the application. Pursuant to Article 19, paragraph 3 of the regulation, the opposition must be based on a registered well-known mark—that is, the opposer’s mark must be registered prior to filing the opposition.

This formal opposition process based on a well-known registered trademark with unrelated goods or services appears to be a prerequisite before the Examiner can issue a final rejection of a mark that is similar in principle or in its entirety to a well-known mark. A question remains as to whether or not Examiners will take a well-known mark into consideration during the examination process if no written opposition has been filed. 

Assignment of Applications

Indonesia’s new Trademark Law allows for a pending trademark application to be assigned during the application process, prior to registration. The old law did not allow for assignment of trademark applications; only registered marks could be assigned.

The new law, however, does not allow every pending trademark application to be assigned. As explained by the Indonesian Trademark Office at a recent national seminar, trademark applications filed before the enactment of the new Trademark Law on November 25, 2016, cannot be assigned until they are registered. The regulation affirmed this in Article 52. Thus, only pending trademark applications filed after the enactment of the new law can be assigned .

Overall, the simplified procedures and additional clarity introduced by this new regulation are likely to contribute to smoother and more timely trademark registrations, renewals, and assignments for brand owners.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
August 28, 2026
When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another
August 27, 2026
It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership