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​ 

July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 15, 2026
Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be
Read More