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

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.

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 as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free 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