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

February 19, 2024

Protection of Traditional Knowledge in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates

Indonesia is a multicultural country with diverse ethnicities, cultures, and religions, leading to a wealth of cultural creations, knowledge, and traditions. Where such creations, knowledge, and traditions are owned by a certain community and have become part of the identity of that community, they may be protected by Indonesian law as communal intellectual property.

One type of communal intellectual property is traditional knowledge. A well-known example is a form of martial arts known as pencak silat. This martial art was traditionally performed when welcoming guests, usually accompanied by gondang borogong music, and is registered as traditional knowledge from Riau, Indonesia.

New Regulation on Communal Intellectual Property

Traditional knowledge used to be regulated by a number of laws, including three separate ones on copyright, patents, and cultural advancement. However, in December 2022, the Indonesian government issued Government Regulation No. 56 of 2022 on Communal Intellectual Property (“GR 56/2022”), establishing a single set of rules for the definition and protection of traditional knowledge. One of the aims of the regulation is to encourage the registration of communal intellectual property, which was part of the government’s priority program for 2023.

Under GR 56/2022, traditional knowledge is defined as ideas and concepts that contain local values resulting from real experiences of interacting with the environment and that are developed continuously and passed on to the next generation. The regulation recognizes the following categories of traditional knowledge:

  • Traditional methods or processes;
  • Technical proficiency;
  • Skills;
  • Learning;
  • Agricultural knowledge;
  • Technical knowledge;
  • Ecological knowledge;
  • Knowledge related to genetic resources;
  • Knowledge of medicine, traditional medicine, and healing procedures;
  • Economic systems;
  • Social organization systems;
  • Knowledge related to the behavior of nature and the universe; and
  • Other forms of knowledge.

Traditional knowledge is a moral right belonging to the community, requiring any user of the traditional knowledge to acknowledge its origin and use it in a manner that maintains its identity and value to the community.

Recordation of Traditional Knowledge

The government is obliged to inventory, care for, and maintain traditional knowledge. Currently, unlisted traditional knowledge must be recorded with the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (MOLHR) or the relevant minister, nonministerial government institution, or regional government. A recordation application can be submitted online by the community to which the traditional knowledge belongs or by the relevant regional government.

The following documents must be submitted as part of the application:

  • Prescribed application form;
  • Descriptions of the traditional knowledge;
  • Supporting data; and
  • Written statement of support for the protection, preservation, development, and use of traditional knowledge, signed by the regional government.

The descriptions of the traditional knowledge should include:

  • Name of the traditional knowledge;
  • Community of origin;
  • Form of the traditional knowledge (e.g., written or non-written);
  • Region/location of the community of origin;
  • Type of traditional knowledge (e.g., dance, craft, clothing); and
  • Documentary evidence of the traditional knowledge (e.g., video recording)

Once an application for recordation has been submitted, the authorities will conduct a formality review to ensure all required documents have been submitted. They will then form a team to conduct a verification review to determine if the knowledge meets the definition of traditional knowledge set out in GR 56/2022. If it is determined that the knowledge meets the definition, it will be recorded in the Communal Intellectual Property Database developed by the MOLHR’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property. Currently, there are around 10,475 communal intellectual properties recorded in the database, of which over 500 are traditional knowledge.

The recordation of traditional knowledge helps to prevent the exploitation of knowledge in a manner that is not in accordance with the values and meaning given to it by the community of origin. Recordations can also be used to facilitate the resolution of legal disputes. Moreover, the authorities are required to maintain recorded traditional knowledge, including through education and promotion, and ensure that it is used for the benefit of the community of origin.

Use and Safeguarding of Traditional Knowledge

Anyone can use traditional knowledge that is recorded in the Communal Intellectual Property Database, provided they acknowledge its origin and use it in a manner that maintains its identity and value to its community. However, anyone who wishes to use traditional knowledge that is recorded as sacred, secret, or strictly held (e.g., holy books) may only do so with the permission of the community. Moreover, if a person wishes to use traditional knowledge for commercial purposes, they must share a portion or the monetary of nonmonetary benefits with its community.

Indonesia’s mechanisms for protecting traditional knowledge are a step forward in safeguarding the cultural heritage and intellectual property of its diverse communities. With the issuance of Government Regulation No. 56 of 2022 on Communal Intellectual Property, Indonesia has established a comprehensive framework for defining, recording, and regulating traditional knowledge. This regulation not only acknowledges the communal ownership of traditional knowledge but also emphasizes the importance of maintaining its authenticity and value within the respective communities. By requiring recordation and acknowledgment of origin for any use of traditional knowledge, Indonesia aims to prevent its exploitation while promoting its respectful and beneficial utilization. Through these measures, Indonesia is not only preserving its rich cultural heritage but also fostering a framework of respect and reciprocity among its diverse communities and those who seek to engage with their traditional knowledge.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More