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 26, 2014

Proposed Amendments to Indonesia’s Trademark Law

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Among the various types of intellectual property applications that are filed at the Indonesian Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights (DGIP), trademark filing is the most common, with 62,813 applications being made in 2013. Among ASEAN countries, this figure places Indonesia firmly at the top in terms of the number of trademark applications filed. In view of this, the DGIP is revising the current trademark law and is implementing regulations to improve its services and provide greater legal certainty for all trademark owners in Indonesia.

The primary reasons for revising the law are to foster fair competition, provide broader protection for trademark owners, simplify the procedures for trademark registration, and ensure compliance with the international conventions that Indonesia has or will ratify. The possible changes will include some refinements of the current practice (including revised procedures to the publication stage), the introduction of some new practices (such as the introduction of nontraditional marks), and the abandonment of certain outdated approaches (which specifically encompasses DGIP trademark cancellation at its own initiative).

Publication and Substantive Examination

A proposed change will require that a three-month publication stage for opposition takes place prior to the Examiner conducting the substantive examination stage. Therefore, all trademarks that pass an initial formality examination will proceed directly to publication. This will lessen the burden on Examiners by reducing the substantive examination process to a single step—an opposition, if filed, will be considered simultaneously with a substantive examination on confusingly similar trademarks.

This could significantly hasten the examination process and reduce the DGIP’s trademark application backlog. By publishing the application before it is substantively examined, the concept is that time will not be wasted by “reexamining” the mark when an opposition is filed. This is a practical approach in Indonesia where the Examiners who examine the applications are the same ones who review oppositions that are filed.

Implications for Trademark Owners for Opposition

With the above change, the three-month publication period provides the only opportunity that trademark owners will have to oppose any third party’s application. While the push for greater efficiency is laudable, it is important to bear in mind that all examinations will fall within the Examiner’s subjective discretion, making it difficult to achieve predictable outcomes. Examiners are still obligated to, on their own initiative, reject a bad-faith or confusingly similar application under the substantive examination stage, but it is possible that they will begin to rely more on oppositions by trademark owners, while reducing the stringency of their confusing-similarity reviews.

To help manage risk if this change is enacted, trademark owners are strongly recommended to pay considerably more attention to monitoring published trademarks that may be confusingly similar, so that they can file oppositions in time to protect their rights, by bringing the Examiner’s attention to their additional evidence and facts  in support of the examination. This is a particularly salient point in the Indonesia trademark scenario, since the system of invalidation/cancellation is costly and complicated, and the petition needs to be filed with the Court of Commerce.

As a precaution, it is also important to point out that this potential change in the law could indirectly invite more bad-faith applications. This is a particularly pertinent issue in Indonesia, where trademark squatters are already a significant problem. Unless a trademark owner has in place a system of monitoring trademarks in local publications, bad-faith applications may escape through to registration.  

Examination Period

Under the proposed amendments, the DGIP plans to cut down on the substantive examination lead time from the current nine months and ten days to only six months. Though its actual applicability in practice is questionable, we hope that with the DGIP’s plan to improve its administration program by using the Industrial Property Automation System (IPAS)—a program developed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which is designed to enhance the quality on the time as well as the output—long delays in the examination process will be minimized.

Criminal Penalties

The amendment will also increase the criminal penalties for trademark infringements. The term of imprisonment will remain the same, except when the infringing goods threaten the health or safety of human lives or the environment—in which case, the criminal sanctions of imprisonment will be increased by one-third of the normal term.

The imposed fines will be much higher in certain instances, such as trademark infringement involving a forgery of an identical mark in its entirety to a registered trademark—in which case, the top level of the fine will be IDR 2.5 billion (approximately USD 217,500), as opposed to IDR 1 billion (USD 87,000). The fines for trademark infringement using a mark similar in its essential part to a registered trademark shall be capped at a maximum of IDR 2 billion (USD 174,000), instead of IDR 800 million (USD 69,600). These tougher criminal sanctions should—if the trademark owner undertakes a serious enforcement action—help to alleviate the problem of counterfeit goods in Indonesia, as well as improve the country’s image as being more IP-owner friendly. 

Renewal

A grace period for trademark renewal will be allowed within a period of 6 months prior to and up to 6 months after the date of expiration of the trademark registration, in lieu of the current 12-month period for renewal prior to the expiry date. This change may be preferable to some trademark owners, as it allows for a grace period for trademark renewal that did not previously exist. This provision is in line with the international approach toward trademark renewal.

Nontraditional Marks

The proposed trademark law will accept filings/registrations of the following nontraditional trademarks: three-dimensional marks, sounds, scents, and holograms. While this is a good step forward in the local law, it is not yet clear whether any practical issues will arise in the submission of sound, scent, and hologram specimens. Assessing the distinctiveness of these nontraditional marks will also be a challenge for Examiners, as is the case in other countries. It is therefore advisable that nontraditional trademark applications should be accompanied by a corresponding previously accepted registration.

Association of Marks in Case of Assignment Recordal

The concept of an “association of mark” will be introduced as it relates to the assignment of registered trademarks. Although trademark owners are not required to register two or more of their marks in association, the proposed law states that, in an assignment of more than one registration under the same IP owner, the registered marks that have similarities (in large part or in entirety) and have similar goods/services can only be assigned when all of the registered marks are transferred to the same party. The benefit of this new practice is that consumers will be less confused as to who is the owner of a registered trademark, as a similar mark for similar goods or services cannot be owned by two different entities. This will also ensure that consumers will not suffer from vastly different levels of product or service quality rendered by an identical or similar brand.

It is important to note, however, that this provision involves subjective consideration of the similarities of the registered marks to be assigned. It is therefore possible that there may be further complications and confusion in drafting an assignment agreement between two parties, as the assignor and assignee must ensure that the list of assigned marks is complete and exhaustive to avoid a rejection of the assignment by the Examiner. 

Another complication may arise when mergers and acquisitions occur. The proposed assignment changes may result in limitations being placed on acquiring or selling parts of a company’s business or intellectual assets, as an assignment of registered trademarks must form part of the deal.  

Madrid Protocol

There is also a new section under the draft Trademark Law that talks briefly about the Application for Registration of International Trademarks under the Madrid Protocol. The section outlines the eligibility of an Indonesian individual or business entity to file an International Trademark, as well as the recognition of a designation in Indonesia for overseas trademark applicants. Further provisions regarding International Trademark Registration will be regulated by a government regulation, which is not yet available. This move is in accordance with the ASEAN Blueprint, which commits member countries to Madrid Protocol accession by December 2015.

Preliminary Injunctions

The proposed bill also provides greater details on the steps and procedures for obtaining preliminary injunctions from the court. This is a welcome development, as the current provisions on preliminary injunctions lack clarity to the extent that preliminary injunctions are unenforceable currently. 

Deletion of Cancellations by DGIP

The proposed bill will remove the provision that allows the DGIP to cancel trademark registrations at its own initiative based on the owner’s non-use of the mark for three consecutive years. In reality, however, such cancellations by the DGIP were extremely rare and, as such, this change is more symbolic. When this change is implemented, cancellation actions will only be initiated by a third party in the form of a suit commenced at the Court of Commerce.

Promising Step Forward

While these new provisions are not yet set in stone, as they are pending further legislative approval, they appear to be a promising step in developing clearer and more effective trademark protection and enforcement in Indonesia. It is anticipated that the new provisions will be implemented within the next one to two years, in line with Indonesia’s accession to the Madrid Protocol.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More