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

April 22, 2020

Impact of COVID-19 on the Indonesian IP System as of May 14, 2020

Subscribe to Updates

In response to the increasing number of COVID-19 cases, the Indonesian Ministry of Health has implemented detailed guidelines for large-scale social restrictions (known as pembatasan sosial berskala besar  or PSBB). PSBB has been applied in two provinces so far—Jakarta and West Sumatra—and may be extended to others in due course. Although the restriction has wide ranging effects on many business sectors, IP owners are still able to exercise their rights by registering them through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). In addition, although courts have postponed some cases, online trials are available and ongoing subject to the discretion of the presiding judge in each case.

However, following the recent extension and expansion of measures that have a limited impact the exercise of intellectual property rights in Indonesia (as detailed in our earlier client alert), we provide an updated overview of the current impact on the IP system in Indonesia below.

Directorate General of Intellectual Property

The DGIP, the Indonesian government agency that oversees IP rights in the country, issued its latest notification on the limitation of physical contact due to the COVID-19 outbreak on May 13, 2020, extending the office closure of physical counters until May 29. During this period, all DGIP officers are working from home and accessing the system remotely, optimizing the online channels for IP matters. These conditions will remain in effect until at least May 29, 2020 (under Circular Letter No. HKI-OT.02.02-19, which may be subject to extension).

Trademarks

The online system remains available for:

  • New trademark application filings.
  • Responses to office actions.
  • Recordals.
  • Appeals.
  • Oppositions and rebuttals.

For all online filings, the original deadlines remain unchanged. Meanwhile, the Trademark Appeal Commission has declared that any appeal deadline falling within the closure period will be extended until the situation is normal (until May 21, 2020, unless extended).

Patents

The online system remains available for:

  • New patent applications.
  • Responses to office actions issued for patent applications filed prior to August 19, 2019 (which must be submitted through the online filing system and no special extension is available). Any failure to submit formality documents must be communicated to the DGIP.
  • Official fees for patent annuities (an official receipt will not be provided until the DGIP counter reopens).

For patent applications filed before August 19, 2019, excess claims cannot be paid through online filing. Therefore, excess claims can be paid when the DGIP counter reopens.

Other

The online filing of copyrights and industrial designs can be conducted normally during this period.

Courts

The Supreme Court has issued Circular Letter No. 1 of 2020 regarding the Guidelines for the Implementation of Duties during the COVID-19 Prevention Period within the Supreme Court and the Lower Judicial Bodies.

The circular letter encourages every judge to optimize their working-from-home system and utilize e-court proceedings. Trials of all cases other than nonextendable criminal, military, or Islamic criminal matters are suspended until the prevention period is over—with further note made by the court clerk. However, the circular letter mentions that judges, at their own discretion, can determine the urgency of suspension. Therefore, the disputing parties in IP cases need to check with the Commercial Court regarding whether the examination of the case is suspended or not.

National Agency of Drug and Food Control

Offices of the National Agency of Drug and Food Control (NADFC, or BPOM in Indonesian), remain closed for walk-in filing and consultation until further notice. The last day that their counters were open for service was March 12, 2020, and they are now officially closed for on-site services until further notice.

During this period, the NADFC officials remain available for inquiry via email, messaging applications, or phone call, though wait times may vary.

 

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More
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