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 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More