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​ 

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
May 22, 2026
Intellectual property specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have contributed an updated Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview for Thomson Reuters Practical Law, an online publication that provides comprehensive legal guides for jurisdictions worldwide. The Vietnam overview was authored by Linh Thi Mai Nguyen, Thanh Phuong Vu, Chi Lan Dang, Son Thai Hoang, and Duc Anh Tran. The chapter provides a high-level examination of key aspects of IP transactions law in Vietnam, including IP assignment and licensing, research and development collaborations, IP in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), lending and taking security over intellectual property rights, settlement agreements, employee- and consultant-created IP, competition law, taxation, and non-tariff trade barriers. Key topics covered in the chapter include: IP assignment: Basis and formalities for assignments of patents, utility models, trade marks, copyright, design rights, trade secrets, confidential information, and domain names in Vietnam. IP licensing: Scope, formalities, and recordal requirements for licensing patents, trade marks, copyright, design rights, and trade secrets. Research and development collaborations: Treatment of improvements, derivatives, and joint ownership of IP, including exploitation and enforcement issues. IP aspects of M&A and security: Due diligence, warranties, transfer formalities, and taking security over intellectual property rights. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The Intellectual Property Transactions Global Guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners seeking comparative insight into transactional IP issues across multiple jurisdictions. To view the latest version of the Intellectual Property Transactions in Vietnam overview, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
May 13, 2026
Laos has significantly broadened its industrial property administrative review framework, most notably by extending it to cover copyright and related rights for the first time. Decision No. 0306/IC on the Administrative Resolution of Disputes Concerning Industrial Property Registration, New Plant Variety Registration, and Copyright and Related Rights Recordation took effect on April 24, 2026, replacing the previous rules from 2023, which had covered only industrial property and new plant variety matters. Decision No. 0306/IC governs how Laos’ Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) and provincial offices handle formal challenges to industrial property registrations and applications. The proceedings covered include oppositions to pending applications, appeals of refused applications, requests for cancellation of existing registrations, and—newly—disputes concerning the recordation and interpretation of copyright and related rights. These administrative proceedings within the DIP are heard by a government-appointed Administrative Dispute Resolution Committee, which functions similarly to the opposition and review boards found in other jurisdictions. Key Changes Decision No. 0306/IC covers four categories of administrative proceedings: Oppositions: Third-party challenges to a pending industrial property application before it is granted. Refusal appeals: Challenges to the DIP’s decision to refuse their application. Cancellation or deletion requests: Applications to invalidate an existing registered right on the grounds that it should not have been granted. Copyright and related rights disputes: Challenges to or interpretations of copyright and related rights recordations, including determinations of whether a work qualifies for copyright protection under Lao law. The most significant development is the committee’s new jurisdiction over copyright matters. The committee is now empowered to resolve disputes concerning copyright and related rights recordation—this includes the authority to determine whether a work qualifies for copyright protection and to interpret the scope of an existing recordation. Parties who believe a competitor has improperly recorded copyright over a work, or who wish to contest
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,