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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More