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

December 7, 2023

Proposed Amendments to Indonesia’s Industrial Design Law

Subscribe to Updates

On November 13, 2023, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) of Indonesia’s Ministry of Law and Human Rights held an offline workshop regarding intellectual property (IP).  One of the main discussion topics was the socialization of the proposed amendments to the Industrial Design Law.

The proposed amendments to the Industrial Design Law contain a number of important changes, as outlined below.

Industrial design definition

The definition of an industrial design is clarified and emphasized in the draft law. An object protected through industrial design rights is “the outer appearance of a product,” gives an “aesthetic impression,” can be protected in whole or in part, and may be two- or three-dimensional.

Registration system

The protection period for industrial designs set by the draft law is 5 years, renewable for up to two additional five-year terms. This differs from the period provided under the current law, which is 10 years from the filing date, nonrenewable.

Recordal system

The draft law introduces a recordal system particularly for designs that have a relatively short commercial turnaround time, such as textile products. Recorded designs have a protection period of three years from the first publication. The recorded designs can become registered design applications by filing the design through the DGIP’s registration system no later than 12 months from its first publication.

Details regarding the recordal system are not yet available.

Nonregistrable industrial designs

The draft law clarifies that the following are not registrable as industrial designs:

  • Designs that do not give an aesthetic impression;
  • Designs whose features are for purposes of technical functioning only;
  • Folklore or traditional cultural expressions that have not been developed further;
  • Designs contrary to the provisions of laws and regulations, public order, religion, or morality; and
  • Designs filed in bad faith.

International design applications

The new law introduces a provision regarding design applications that are taken from an international application. However, detailed application requirements are not stipulated in the new law. Provisions to accommodate possible ratification of the Hague system for international applications are currently being considered by the Indonesian government.

Industrial Design Appeals Commission

The current law only stipulates that any interested party can file a lawsuit over cancellation of an industrial design registration with the commercial court. The new law allows applicants to file their objections to refusal decisions and invalidation of industrial design rights with a new independent adjudicating body at the DGIP called the Industrial Design Appeals Commission. Appeals can be filed with the Industrial Design Appeals Commission regarding:

  • Rejection of an application (filed by the applicant or proxy);
  • Correction to a granted industrial design (filed by the applicant or proxy; and
  • Granting of industrial design rights (filed by interested third parties).

This provision aims to make it easier for the public or third parties who object to a registered industrial design to file for cancellation through the Industrial Design Appeals Commission in addition to the option of filing an appeal with the Commercial Court. This can also reduce the courts’ burden of handling industrial design rights cases.

Landlord liability

The current law does not include a landlord liability provision. The draft law prohibits trading location administrators and mall owners from allowing the sale or duplication of goods resulting from infringement of industrial design rights. The draft law does not stipulate any penalty for this violation.

Industrial design rights implementation by the government

The current law does not mention industrial design rights implementation by the government. The draft law clarifies that the government can implement industrial design rights in Indonesia in the interest of national defense or security by providing reasonable compensation to industrial design rights holders.

Fiduciary guarantee

Industrial design rights can be used as an object of fiduciary guarantee under the new law.

Outlook

The draft law aims to increase the effectiveness of the industrial design system, in line with international developments in the field of industrial design. It also seeks to create a climate that further encourages creation and innovation in the field of industrial design as part of the intellectual property system. By clarifying various issues and introducing relevant new measures, the draft law will likely advance Indonesia’s ability to provide protection for industrial design rights and respond to current challenges in this area. The draft law is still under discussion and is expected to be finalized by the end of 2024.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More