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

February 29, 2016

Taking Action Against Trademark Infringement in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Indonesia uses a “first-to-file” system, under which trademark owners must register their trademarks before they are able to take action against infringers for trademark infringement. The earlier your trademarks are registered and the wider their scope of protection, the better chance you have to exercise your rights and protect your intellectual property (IP).

As a trademark owner facing infringement of your IP rights in Indonesia, there are a number of important considerations to be aware of, and you have various means of recourse available to you.

Due Diligence

Before taking legal action against infringers for trademark infringement, you should conduct due diligence on your own IP rights to ensure that infringers are unable to make a counterclaim or revoke registrations of your IP.

To conduct due diligence on your own IP rights, you should ensure that the following factors have been adequately addressed:

  • Ensure that your IP rights are valid
  • Verify the ownership over your IP rights
  • Investigate the actual use of your IP in the market and secure all relevant documents
  • Review local compliance requirements (e.g., all agreements in Indonesia must be accompanied by a translation into Bahasa Indonesia; otherwise, the agreement may be unenforceable)
  • Determine whether there are any third-party rights attached to your IP (e.g., licenses or franchises)
  • Ascertain whether there are any existing or upcoming rules or legislation that could impair your IP rights (e.g., unfair competition law, consumer protection law, etc.) 
  • Seek the advice of local counsel to conduct your IP due diligence   

Preliminary Measures

In practice, it is often preferable to reach a settlement with an infringer instead of pursuing a legal action, which can be both costly and time-consuming. Settlements generally involve the destruction of the counterfeit goods, an undertaking, and the issuance of a public apology by the infringer.

To successfully reach a settlement with an infringer, you should conduct an investigation to obtain as much information as possible about the infringer and its use of the infringed trademark(s). The investigation can be conducted through investigators at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), but you may consider using private investigators to ensure that the results of the investigation are reported quickly and kept confidential. If the infringed products relate to food or drugs, you should also conduct a search at the Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan, the Indonesian national agency of drug and food control.

Based on the information obtained from the investigation, a warning letter should be drafted and sent to the infringer, stipulating that the infringer should cease the infringing activities. The letter should be written in the Indonesian language, as English is not widely spoken in Indonesia. After the warning letter is sent, it is common to send follow-up letters and hold negotiations with the infringer.

Legal Actions Against Infringers

Criminal prosecution.  If you want to pursue a criminal action against an infringer, you must file a formal complaint either with the police or the Directorate General of the DGIP. After the complaint is received, investigators at the DGIP are authorized in the same way as police to conduct an investigation into IP infringement.

Typically, an investigation will lead to a raid. However, due to a backlog of complaints and an inadequate number of investigators, it can take several months before an actual raid takes place.

Civil enforcement.  Trademark owners or licensees of a registered trademark can file a civil lawsuit in the Commercial Court against trademark infringers in the form of a claim of compensation and/or a demand to cease all acts related to the unauthorized use of a registered trademark. Licensees, however, must appropriately record their license agreement at the DGIP.

The Commercial Court may order the infringer to surrender the infringing goods and/or order the infringing goods to be valued. This will only happen after the decision of the Court becomes final and legally binding. The decision of the Commercial Court can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Border measures.  Although Indonesia’s Customs Law does not provide customs recordation or temporary suspension orders/injunctions of suspected IP rights infringement for imported or exported goods, recourse may be available under the Supreme Court Rules 2012 on Injunctions and Provisional Measures. Under these rules, you, as the IP owner, may request a warrant from the Commercial Court to temporarily suspend the release of suspected infringing goods. 

The period of suspension is ten working days, extendable for another ten working days if an additional warrant is obtained from the Commercial Court. During this time, you must notify the customs official of any legal action taken in order to maintain your rights—otherwise, the customs official may terminate the suspension of goods.

Despite these rules, in practice, it is a challenge to exercise these procedures. Often, there is an insufficient amount of information and supporting evidence on the consigned goods, making it difficult to determine whether the goods are counterfeit products. 

Conclusion

There are a variety of options available to IP owners to take action against infringers. But there are always risks involved. You should therefore conduct thorough due diligence on your IP rights before proceeding with legal action against an infringer.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More