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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More