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

August 24, 2015

Registering Geographical Indications in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Geographical Indications (GIs) are signs used on products which have a specific geographical origin and characteristics or a reputation that are due to factors that are indigenous to that origin, such as nature and people.

In Indonesia, numerous products have been registered as GIs. Coconut sugar, coffee, furniture, fruits, tobacco, honey, herbs, horse milk, patchouli oil, rice, vegetables, and white pepper are among just a few examples. Applicants originate from across Indonesia, and certain areas are often famous for producing a particular kind of product. 

Kintamani Bali Arabica Coffee is a good example of a GI registered in Indonesia. The coffee has a unique orange taste which is derived from certain geographical factors. This unique taste distinguishes it from other types of coffee, making the coffee registrable as a GI.

In Indonesia, GIs are protected under the country’s Trademark Law, unlike other jurisdictions such as Thailand, Malaysia, or India where GIs are protected under sui generis  Acts. Therefore, many of Indonesia’s trademark regulations and procedures, such as appeal proceedings, are used for GIs.

According to the Trademark Law and certain government regulations, three types of applicants are eligible to apply for a GI:

  • An institution/association that represents the community in the area where the products are produced, which consist of (a) parties who undertake business on goods of natural products or natural resources; (b) producers of agricultural products; (c) producers of handicrafts or industrial products; or (d) merchants who sell the goods.
  • An authorized government institution.
  • A group of consumers of the goods.

When applying for a GI, an applicant needs to adhere to certain formality requirements. The application, which must be submitted to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights in Bahasa Indonesia, should include:

  • the name of the applicant’s institution;
  • the name of the applicant’s proxy (which must be a registered intellectual property consultant);
  • the applicant’s diplomatic representative (for foreign applicants);
  • the name of the GI;
  • the type of products to be registered as a GI;
  • ten GI labels;
  • a book of requirements;
  • a specific power of attorney;
  • an abstract of the qualifications books; and
  • proof of payment of the official fee.

Foreign GI applications must be acknowledged and/or registered in accordance with the prevailing regulations of their country of origin before they can be registered in Indonesia.

One of the most important requirements in filing for GI protection is that the applicant must submit a book of requirements. The book of requirements should include:

  • the name of the GI in the application for registration;
  • the name of the goods to be protected under a GI;
  • the details of the characteristics and qualities of the produced goods;
  • the details of the environmental impact in terms of geography and nature as well as human factors on the characteristics and qualities of goods;
  • the details of the area boundary and/or area map that is protected by the GI;
  • the details of history and tradition relating to the use of the GI to mark the goods produced by the area, including testimonials from the community on the GI;
  • the details explaining the production process, processing process, and making process which are being applied that enable every producer in that area to produce, process, or make the concerned goods;
  • the details of the methods used for quality testing of the concerned goods; and
  • the labels of the concerned goods showing the GI.

After a GI has been registered, it will be protected indefinitely as long as the specific characteristics and qualities which form the basis of the grant of protection exist. Any person—including the Geographical Indication Experts Team, a nonstructural body consisting of GI experts and representatives of the officials whose scope of duties are related to agriculture, forestry, industry, commerce, etc., who evaluates the book of requirements and gives advice to the Directorate General with regard to registration, amendment, cancellation, or control of national GIs—can make a submission to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights that the specific characteristics and/or qualities no longer exist, and as such, the GI should be invalidated. It is therefore important for the institution that registered the GI to manage, maintain, and control the specific characteristics and qualities of a product registered as a GI.

GIs can have vast economic value and are especially useful as marketing tools in emerging markets. To date, however, no ASEAN countries have secured a GI registration in Indonesia, even though most ASEAN countries produce agricultural goods that are registrable as GIs. This is a lost opportunity to increase the value of their products.

Not only does GI registration create a niche market for existing products, increase the value of a product, and create job opportunities for locals, but it also helps to maintain knowledge of traditions and support other industries, such as tourism. Securing GI protection is therefore highly recommended.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More