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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation