Responding to Refusal of an International Trademark Registration in Indonesia

July 31, 2025

Responding to Refusal of an International Trademark Registration in Indonesia

The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia.

Appointing a Local Representative to Respond

An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries.

Timing

When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue.

Grounds for Refusal

After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The trademark is primarily assessed against absolute and relative grounds for refusal.

IR applications are usually rejected based on relative grounds, specifically similarity with a prior registered mark in Indonesia. To mitigate potential risks and formulate an effective strategy, it is advisable to conduct a trademark search in the target countries prior to filing.

Overcoming a Refusal

Assessing the status of the cited mark is important to determine the strategy to overcome the refusal. Below are several strategies to overcome the refusal.

Submit a response. A response to the refusal may be submitted by presenting arguments based on differences in visual appearance, phonetics, concept, and nature of the goods.
Delete the conflicted class. A rejection of one class in a multiple-class application may delay the examination of all applied classes. If the refusal only affects certain classes and not the entire application, a trademark owner may consider deleting the rejected classes to allow the registration process to proceed for the nonconflicted classes.
Letter of consent or trademark assignment. The DGIP encourages applicants to support applications by providing any evidence of consent. Therefore, approaching the owner of the cited mark to obtain a letter of consent by allowing both marks to be co-registered could be an option to overcome the refusal, at the discretion of the examiners. If the IR application is refused due to similarity with a prior registered mark owned by a company within the same corporate group, the trademark owner may also file a recordal of assignment to transfer ownership of the cited mark so that both marks are owned by the same holder.
Amend and refile the trademark application. Refiling a trademark application with additional distinctive elements or by excluding certain goods can be an effective strategy to eliminate similarities with the cited mark. If the cited mark is approaching its expiration date, the trademark owner may consider monitoring its status. Should the mark not be renewed, refilling the application through the national route could be a viable option. Alternatively, renouncing the Indonesia designation and submitting a new subsequent designation of Indonesia can be applied.
Court action. As a last resort, a trademark owner may initiate legal proceedings against the cited mark. Available court actions include filing a nonuse deletion and cancellation lawsuit based on similarity or bad faith. These cancellation proceedings are handled by Indonesia’s Commercial Court.

Response Examination Process

Once a response is submitted, it will be reexamined by the DGIP examiner within approximately 3–6 months. This timeframe may vary depending on the workload of the examiner. If the response is accepted, the application will proceed to the registration stage, and the DGIP will issue a statement of grant directly to the registered representative through the WIPO.

If the response is rejected, the DGIP examiner will issue a notice of permanent refusal to the local representative and the registered representative. The applicant is entitled to file an appeal before the Trademark Appeal Commission within 90 working days from the date of notification. If no appeal is filed, the applicant is deemed to have accepted permanent refusal. If an appeal is submitted, it will be reviewed by the Trademark Appeal Commission within approximately 4–6 months.

Conclusion

Navigating the trademark registration process in Indonesia through the Madrid System can be challenging, but with the right strategies and local expertise, it is entirely manageable. By understanding the grounds for refusal and exploring various options to overcome them, trademark owners can significantly increase their chances of successful registration. Consulting with local attorneys and staying informed about the latest developments is crucial to ensure a smooth and efficient registration process. Every trademark application is unique, and a tailored approach is key to achieving your business goals in Indonesia.

Related Professionals

Karenina Aulia

IP Coordinator

Indonesia

+6221 2971 8011

Email

Wongrat Ratanaprayul

Partner and Director, Indonesia

Thailand, Indonesia,

+6221 2971 8099

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

July 30, 2025

AI Model Training and Copyright in Thailand: Key Challenges and Potential Solutions

Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for

July 25, 2025

Major Legal Changes Impacting Vietnam’s IP Regime: 2025 Legislative Updates

Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted

July 21, 2025

Thai Court Finds Acquired Trademark Distinctiveness through Use in Rare Decision

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,

July 14, 2025

Pharmaceutical Data Exclusivity in Southeast Asia

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

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

Industries

Practices

July 31, 2025