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, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More
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