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

December 4, 2019

Using the New Online IP Filing System in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The Indonesian Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) officially launched the new and mandatory e-filing system on August 17, 2019. Because of the e-filing system, it is now not possible to file IP applications manually through the filing counter at the DGIP. All new IP applications must be filed online.

The DGIP mentioned that the new system is developed in order to support Indonesia’s 74th Independence Day vision—“towards superior Indonesia” (Menuju Indonesia Unggul). In addition, the DGIP claims that this mandatory system will significantly reduce corruption as it eliminates the chance for a direct meeting between the applicant and the DGIP officer.

Any party who wishes to file an IP application is therefore obliged to register their account and apply through one of the following websites:

  • merek.dgip.go.id for trademarks
  • paten.dgip.go.id for patents
  • desainindustri.dgip.go.id for industrial designs

There is no change in the application procedure for recordation of copyright, which continues to be applied for online at e-hakcipta.dgip.go.id.

Before proceeding with the application, applicants must also order a billing code through the website simpaki.dgip.go.id for the corresponding IP and make payment through the bank. If the payment system is down, it is also possible to make the payment directly at the DGIP counter.

Mandatory Documents

Trademark application   

The IP e-filing system requires the following documents to be submitted at the same time as submission, before the application is processed:

  • Scanned copy of power of attorney
  • E-signature of the applicant
  • E-signature of the IP consultant (if filed by a representative

Even though the current IP laws do not require the power of attorney to be submitted with the application, the new system does not allow subsequent submission of the power of attorney. Thus it is suggested that the applicant provide their IP agent with a general power of attorney with the filing instructions, so that the application can be filed soon after receiving the instructions. This is especially crucial for filing applications that claim priority.

Patent application

The requirements for filing patent applications online remain the same as they were for filing in person; required items include a power of attorney, deed of assignment, statement of ownership, and a certified copy of the priority document (if claiming priority). These documents can be filed along with the application, or within three months from the filing date, with a possible extension of two months, and one additional month subject to payment of a fee to the DGIP.

Now that the application is filed online, only scanned copies of the documents need to be uploaded upon legalization. Even so, we still encourage our clients to provide us with the originals. Based on our experience, if the application does not pass the formality stage due to missing formality requirements, the DGIP would require the documents to be re-submitted.

Design application

The requirements for filing design applications online also remain the same; these include a power of attorney, deed of assignment, statement of ownership, and a certified copy of the priority document (if claiming priority). All must be uploaded online along with the application, or within three months from the filing date, with a possible maximum extension of one month only.

Challenges in Filing the Application

Trademarks

Despite the noble aims of the new system, there are still a number of issues. The biggest challenge related to trademark applications is the selection of goods or services, where the applicant must choose from the list of goods available on the online system. The list of goods and services is very limited, and it is not possible to add or amend anything manually.    

To overcome this, the Trademark Office provides a helpdesk team to assist the applicant in adding the goods or services not already available in the system—applicants may email [email protected] to request the addition of the desired good or service.

Nonetheless, requested goods are not all automatically added. In some cases, the helpdesk team will decline to add an item if it is not deemed to be in the proper class—sometimes with a reply to explain their reasoning, and other times without comment. Particularly in the services class, the helpdesk has seemed reluctant to add anything despite being sent supporting documents (such as the guidelines from the European Intellectual Property Office reflecting acceptance of the new service terms).       

This issue has unfortunately caused a delay in processing new trademark applications. Applicants should therefore be prepared to amend the proposed goods or services to make them fit into the ones that are already listed.

The current goods and services classifications used by the new system are those found in the Madrid Goods & Services Manager (https://webaccess.wipo.int/mgs/), although the current implementing regulation—Article 14 (4) of Minister of Law Regulation No. 67 of 2016—specifically mentions that the registration of trademarks adopts the Nice classification.

For non-priority applications, we suggest amending or selecting the goods or services available on the list rather than waiting for a response from the helpdesk. Doing so will accelerate the application process, so that there is no chance for another party to file a similar mark during the waiting time.

If a priority is claimed while the proposed goods or services are not listed, the DGIP have stated that they will proactively help to add the unavailable goods or services. Unfortunately, if the deadline is too short and there is no response from the helpdesk, the priority cannot be claimed.
Patents

Technical issues in executing the online filing of patents have been gradually solved by the DGIP, although some minor issues still remain.

The biggest issue in filing a patent application online relates to patent annuity debts. If the DGIP finds, during the formality stage, that the applicant still has unpaid annuity debts, they will suspend the pending application. The system will be locked, and the application will not be able to proceed any further. For example, it would not be possible to submit the formality documents or the Indonesian translation of the patent specification if they were not already submitted at the time of filing.

The DGIP will keep the pending application suspended at the formality stage until the end of December 2019 unless the applicant submits an affidavit containing their commitment to pay the debt no later than the end of December 2019. If the debts have not been settled by the end of December 2019, the application will be deemed withdrawn. Accordingly, applicants should check whether they have any unpaid debts before filing a patent application in Indonesia.

Conclusion

The introduction of the online filing system and the requirement that all new applications use the new system, represent a big step for the DGIP, and one that has taken effect within a relatively short time. For now, the online filing system can only receive new trademark, patent, and design applications, recordals of change of data, and expedition of the publication of a pending patent application. The DGIP is planning to soon improve the system to accept post-filing applications such as recordals of assignment, trademark renewals, patent annuities, oppositions, and responses to office actions. These and other systems can be expected to come in the near future.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More