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​ 

June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More