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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More