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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation