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​ 

August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More
July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More