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​ 

March 13, 2026
For decades, intellectual property rights holders seeking to eliminate counterfeit goods from the Thai market have relied primarily on criminal raid actions to seize infringing products and hold infringers accountable. The deterrent value of this approach is typically threefold: imposing criminal liability on infringers, removing counterfeit goods from circulation, and subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines. However, these outcomes often fall short of fulfilling brand owners’ broader objectives. In many cases, those prosecuted are merely staff or intermediaries rather than the principals orchestrating the infringing operations. Moreover, any fines imposed are remitted to the Thai government—not to the rights holders who have suffered commercial harm and invested substantial resources in investigation and coordination with law enforcement authorities. As in other jurisdictions worldwide, rights holders seeking monetary compensation for IP infringement in Thailand have traditionally pursued separate civil litigation. Before initiating such proceedings, a brand owner must gather sufficient evidence to establish both the infringement and the resulting damages. Notably, Thai law does not recognize punitive damages; courts award only actual damages proven by the claimant. In the absence of seized infringing goods, the damages awarded in such cases are typically minimal. This all leaves rights holders with limited recourse despite possibly having suffered significant commercial injury. In 2005, Thailand amended its Criminal Procedure Code to introduce Section 44/1, which enables rights holders to claim damages within criminal proceedings at the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court prior to the evidentiary hearing. In practice, this mechanism allows an injured party to submit a petition for civil damages directly within the criminal case initiated by the public prosecutor. Historically, rights holders in Thailand have been reluctant to use Section 44/1 because the compensation awarded by courts was often insufficient to justify the effort. However, recent years have seen a notable shift
Read More
March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
March 10, 2026
Indonesia’s trademark prosecution process has been significantly streamlined with Ministry of Law Regulation No. 5 of 2026 (MOLR 5/2026) coming into effect on February 23, 2026. In straightforward cases without opposition, applicants may now see their trademarks proceed to registration within three months from filing—a substantial improvement over previous practice. The regulation also introduces detailed procedures for recording changes of name and address and for transferring rights over pending applications. It enhances the role of the Ministry of Law’s regional offices in assisting local individuals and SMEs, adds provisions governing force majeure situations, implements new requirements for collective trademarks, and formalizes several practices already in place. Substantive Examination Acceleration The most significant change under MOLR 5/2026 concerns substantive examination. The regulation now explicitly requires that applications be published within 15 days of filing, followed by a two-month publication period. Oppositions must be filed only within this window; late submissions will not be processed, even if the system accepts payment. The new regulation requires the Trademark Office (TMO) to forward copies of any opposition to applicants within 14 days of receipt. If no opposition is filed, substantive examination begins immediately after the publication period ends and will be completed within 30 days. If an opposition is filed, the examination is to be finalized within 90 days of the counterstatement filing date. These timelines enable unopposed applications to move from close of publication to final decision in roughly one month. If an application is provisionally refused during ex officio examination, the applicant has 30 working days from the date of notification to file a response. However, the regulation does not specify the timeline for subsequent reexamination after the response is filed. In recent practice, the TMO has been completing reexamination within approximately two to three months. Ownership Recordals May Pause Substantive
Read More
March 6, 2026
Myanmar’s Trademark Law 2019 introduced a modern framework for the registration, enforcement, and protection of trademarks. However, due to the high volume of applications filed during the soft-opening period of the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), marks submitted from 2022 onward remain pending as the IPD works its way through the applications filed in 2021, which it has been publishing on a monthly basis since May 1, 2024. During this period, businesses should adopt proactive strategies to protect their brands, monitor conflicting marks, and ensure a smooth registration process. Practical Steps for Safeguarding Pending Marks While a pending application does not confer full trademark rights, brand owners can take several practical steps to strengthen their position: Monitor IPD publications. Businesses should regularly review the IPD’s monthly gazette to identify any identical or confusingly similar marks at an early stage and prepare timely oppositions in accordance with the Trademark Law’s provisions allowing “any interested party” to file an objection to a trademark application. Monitor market activity. Early detection of potential infringement enables swift action, such as cease-and-desist letters and opposition proceedings. Businesses should monitor competitors, distributors, and retailers for unauthorized use of their marks. Collect evidence of use. Maintaining evidence of use strengthens claims of distinctiveness and supports enforcement efforts. Businesses should keep records of commercial activities, distribution, brand promotion and development, marketing communications, product packaging and labeling, and sales demonstrating brand recognition in Myanmar and internationally, particularly in Southeast Asian markets. Although the Trademark Law 2019 establishes a first-to-file system, evidence of use provides considerable practical support for distinctiveness claims and enforcement actions. Pursue Interim Enforcement Options. A pending trademark application can be relied upon to oppose or refuse other marks on absolute and/or relative grounds of refusal. In addition, marks with established reputations may be protected under passing-off principles
Read More