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​ 

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