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​ 

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