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

June 3, 2016

Recordation of IP License Agreements in Indonesia: Analysis of the New Regulations

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Indonesia has set out, for the first time, regulations on the procedures to record license agreements for trademarks, patents, copyright, and industrial designs. Although there was previously a requirement to record license agreements, recordation was not actually possible in practice due to a lack of implementing regulations and guidelines.

Past Practices

In the past, instead of recording IP license agreements, trademark owners would file their license agreements to obtain an official stamp on the documents as evidence of good faith. Trademark owners went ahead with filing their license agreements, despite the fact that it was unclear whether or not they were enforceable against third parties. Filing a license agreement, however, was not considered as official recordation, because the process should have involved:

  • making a request to record a license agreement at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP);
  • paying the prescribed fees; and
  • obtaining an examination of the application to record the license agreement.

An IP license agreement would only be considered as officially recorded if these steps were properly taken and successfully fulfilled, but this was not previously possible due to a lack of implemented regulations and guidelines.

New Ministerial Regulation

In an effort to curb these problems, on February 24, 2016, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights issued a Ministerial Regulation on the Requirements and Procedures for Recordation of Intellectual Property License Agreements (Ministerial Regulation). This is an important development, because without recordation, license holders do not have the right to enforce their IP rights under a license agreement against infringers.

In fact, IP license agreements that are not recorded are not recognized by any third party. For example, a licensee’s use of a registered mark under an unrecorded license agreement is not considered as actual “use” by the IP owner. This can lead to the cancellation of the trademark’s registration based on non-use (after three consecutive years), even if the mark was used by a non-recorded licensee.

Under the Ministerial Regulation, a recorded IP license agreement will be valid across the entire territory of the Republic of Indonesia, unless agreed otherwise, for a period of five years. Although the licensor and licensee may agree on a longer term of validity, recordation of the license agreement would only be valid for five years, and  it must not exceed the term of protection of the concerned intellectual property. Recordation can be extended, subject to the payment of fees in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws. 

In addition to licensing whole trademark registrations, it is possible to license part of the goods or services of a registration. It is also not mandatory for a licensor to grant an exclusive license to only one licensee—the licensor may continue to use the licensed IP or grant additional licenses to other parties, unless agreed otherwise. Sublicenses by licensees are also permitted.

Requirements and Procedures

The Ministerial Regulation introduces a number of requirements and procedures for the recordation of IP license agreements. Recordation can be done either electronically through the DGIP’s official website or by submitting a hard copy version of the required documents to the DGIP.

In addition to the basic documents that are required, such as a power of attorney and a copy of the IP registration certificate, a copy or proof of the license agreement must also be submitted to the DGIP. In interpreting a “copy or proof” of the license agreement, it is presumed that a short-form license agreement can be submitted instead of a copy of the original license agreement, in order to maintain party confidentiality and reduce translation costs. A short-form license agreement should be submitted in both English and Indonesian, because under the law, Indonesian is the official language for transactions and commercial documents.

Under the Ministerial Regulation, the DGIP will examine each recordation application to determine the completeness of the required documents within ten working days after an application is filed. At this point, it is unknown whether the DGIP would be able to complete the examination within the stipulated period of ten days, because for other types of recordation such as Recordal of Assignment or Recordal of Name/Address Change, it normally takes the DGIP more than one year to issue a Certificate of Recordal.

After examining a recordation application, if the DGIP determines that the required documents are complete, the Minister will record the license agreement in the General Register for each respective type of IP. On the other hand, if certain required documents are missing, the application will be returned to the applicant to provide the required documents within a prescribed period. If the deadline is not met, the recordation will be abandoned. It is, however, possible to re-file the application to record the license agreement, but this comes with prescribed official fees.

Registrants who submitted a license agreement to the DGIP prior to the Ministerial Regulation’s enactment should re-file their agreement in accordance with the new requirements and procedures. This will ensure greater legal certainty and the recognition of license agreements by third parties.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
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