First Stage of Trademark Examination in Indonesia: Validation & Search — What Is Examined and Why Applications Often Fail Here - AFFA IPR

First Stage of Trademark Examination in Indonesia: Validation & Search — What Is Examined and Why Applications Often Fail Here

Intellectual Property, TrademarkLeave a comment

Many Trademark applicants assume that once they apply, all they need to do is wait for the certificate to be issued. In reality, it is precisely at this very first stage that many applications stop, are delayed, or even end in refusal. The Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), as the authority receiving Trademark applications in Indonesia, has even stated that 75% of Trademark applications are rejected.   This means thousands of Trademarks are refused every month. This is not surprising, considering that competition in Trademark filings is becoming increasingly intense, as more marks have already been registered.   Why is this highly relevant? Because the stages of administrative validation and search (initial examination of potential conflicts) are critical in determining whether your Trademark can proceed or is already problematic from the start.   Administrative Validation — “Is the application eligible to be processed?”   At this stage, the Trademark Office, namely the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), does not assess whether your Trademark is good or bad. Instead, it checks whether the filing complies with formal requirements.   The following are validated:   Applicant Identity Name of the Trademark owner (individual/company) Clear and consistent address For legal entities: consistency with official company data This stage often fails due to: The company name differs from the deed of incorporation Incorrectly written address The actual owner is different from the listed applicant  Trademark Representation The logo must be clear Colors must match the claim Not blurred, broken, or cut off This stage often fails due to: Uploading low-resolution images The submitted logo is different from the one used in the market  Class & Description of Goods/Services The class must follow the classification system The description of goods/services must be clear and acceptable This stage often fails due to: Overly general descriptions (“general trading”) Goods/services not matching the class Using terms not recognized in examination practice  Supporting Documents Power of attorney (if filed through a consultant) Statement of ownership Proof of payment of official fees   If deficiencies are not completed or corrected, the application may be considered incomplete and will not proceed to the next stage.   Initial Search — “Does this Trademark have problems?”   After passing validation, the examination proceeds to initial substantive review, with a particular focus on potential conflicts with other Trademarks. This is where even more applications begin to encounter issues.   The assessment is not limited to identical similarity, but also includes:   Similarity in Principle A Trademark may be refused even if it is not the same, as examiners assess: Sound (phonetic similarity) Spelling Visual appearance Meaning Example: A name that sounds similar to a well-known Trademark → high risk of refusal. Conflict with Prior Registered Trademarks If there is already a Trademark: With a similar name In the same or related class For similar goods/services The likelihood of refusal becomes very high. Trademarks Lacking Distinctiveness A Trademark must be able to distinguish your products from others. High risk of refusal arises when a mark is: Too descriptive (“DELICIOUS COFFEE”, “GOOD SHOES”) Merely describing the type of goods A common term in the industry  Contrary to General Provisions A Trademark may also fail if it: Violates morality Resembles state/institutional symbols Misleads consumers   Why Do Many Fail at This Stage?   Because many applicants: Do not conduct a prior Trademark search Assume a name that seems unique to them is legally safe Choose the wrong class Use descriptive terms Underestimate administrative requirements   Failure at this stage means: The process stops Fees are lost You must start over with a new Trademark   Ultimately, the Validation & Search stage is not just a formality. It is the main filter that determines whether your Trademark is eligible to enter the legal protection process.   For businesses, failure at this early stage can mean: Delayed product launch Risk of legal conflict Loss of market momentum   Therefore, strategy before filing a Trademark application, especially conducting searches and determining the correct class, becomes a key factor in success.   Should you need further information regarding Trademark validation and searches in Indonesia and internationally, contact us through the following channels and receive a FREE 15-minute consultation.   📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📞 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889   About AFFA:  Established in 1999, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights is an Indonesia-based boutique IP law firm serving international brands and innovators, offering full-service support—from prosecution and licensing to enforcement and commercialization—in Indonesia’s dynamic IP landscape. Our firm is widely recognized for its excellence, with accolades including “Best Boutique Law Firm in Indonesia” and “IP Enforcement Firm” at the Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025 by Asia Business Law Journal, as well as being listed as a “Recommended Firm 2024 — Indonesia” by WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals. For more information, please visit: www.affa.co.id.

Patent vs. Utility Model – What’s the Difference in Indonesia? - AFFA IPR

Patent vs. Utility Model – What’s the Difference in Indonesia?

Patent, Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

In the innovation-driven business landscape, many business players assume that all technological inventions can be protected in the same way — “just patent it!” In reality, Indonesia’s Intellectual Property legal system distinguishes invention protection into two main regimes: Patents and Utility Models (commonly referred to in Indonesia as Paten Sederhana). Understanding the difference is not merely a matter of terminology; it involves technology protection strategy, cost, processing time, and the legal strength obtained.   For business owners, inventors, startups, and manufacturing companies in particular, choosing the appropriate type of protection can determine how effectively your innovation is safeguarded against competitors or other unauthorized parties.   Main Difference: Inventive Step The most fundamental distinction between a Patent and a Utility Model lies in the presence of an inventive step. An inventive step means that the invention: Is not obvious or easily predictable; and Contains a technical element that is unexpected, even for a person skilled in the relevant technical field. Specifically, a Patent is granted for a new invention that involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable. This means the technology represents a genuine technical breakthrough, not merely a minor modification. Common examples of Patents: A machine system with a new mechanism that significantly improves efficiency A production method using a technical approach that has never existed before Meanwhile, a Utility Model is granted for a new invention that constitutes a development or improvement of an existing product or process and is industrially applicable. The focus here is on refinement or practical improvement, rather than a major technical breakthrough. Common examples of Utility Models: Improving a tool’s structure to make it stronger or more ergonomic Modifying a mechanical design to simplify assembly   Comparison Table: Patent vs. Utility Model Aspect Patent Utility Model Level of Innovation Must involve an inventive step Development of existing technology is sufficient Technological Complexity Generally higher Usually simpler Strength of Technical Element Technical breakthrough Technical refinement   Differences in the Registration Process Below is an overview of the process and estimated timeframe for registering Patents and Utility Models in Indonesia: Stage Patent Utility Model 1. Application (Formal Examination) 0–6 months 0–28 days 2. Waiting Period* 6–18 months 14 days 3. Publication 6 months 14 days 4. Substantive Examination Max. 30 months Max. 6 months 5. Certificate Issuance 3–6 months 3–6 months *) What is the Waiting Period? The waiting period is the time allowed to make changes or corrections before the application is published to the public. An application may fail at the formal examination stage due to errors such as: Inconsistent invention titles between the description, abstract, and assignment documents. Description format not complying with required standards. Not all inventors signing the ownership documents. Substantive examination fees not being paid on time. If these issues are not corrected, the application will be deemed withdrawn.   Difference in Protection Term Another crucial difference between a Patent and a Utility Model lies in the duration of protection. A Patent is protected for 20 years from the filing date, whereas a Utility Model is protected for only 10 years. However, both are subject to annual maintenance fees, and neither can be extended once the protection term expires.   Which One Is More Suitable for Your Business? You may choose a Patent if: Your technology is truly new and complex It has long-term strategic value You seek maximum legal protection On the other hand, a Utility Model may be the right option if: Your invention is an improvement of an existing product You prefer a faster protection process You focus on practical market protection   Should you need further information regarding the differences between Patents and their protection in Indonesia and other jurisdictions, contact us through the following channels and receive a FREE 15-minute consultation.   📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📞 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889   About AFFA:  Established in 1999, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights is an Indonesia-based boutique IP law firm serving international brands and innovators, offering full-service support—from prosecution and licensing to enforcement and commercialization—in Indonesia’s dynamic IP landscape. Our firm is widely recognized for its excellence, with accolades including “Best Boutique Law Firm in Indonesia” and “IP Enforcement Firm” at the Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025 by Asia Business Law Journal, as well as being listed as a “Recommended Firm 2024 — Indonesia” by WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals. For more information, please visit: www.affa.co.id.

From Trading Card Hype to Real Business Risk - AFFA IPR

From Trading Card Hype to Real Business Risk: Why Global Creators Should Protect Their IP Early

Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

In recent years, the global market has witnessed something remarkable: collectible cards have evolved from simple entertainment into high-value assets. In many countries, certain collectible cards are no longer treated merely as hobby items—they are traded like investment products, sometimes reaching the value of luxury goods.   This trend is easy to spot online. Viral content frequently showcases collectible cards based on a globally iconic Japanese-origin IP being sold at extraordinary prices, used as prestige collectibles, and even exchanged as high-value items in private transactions.   But the strongest signal that this industry has entered a new economic category comes from a real-world extreme case: a collectible card store in Manhattan was reportedly robbed, with perpetrators escaping with rare graded cards worth approximately USD 100,000.   When something becomes valuable enough to be targeted by armed criminals, it has clearly crossed a threshold—it is no longer “just a game.”   And this is where the most important question emerges for global creators and IP owners: If a card can become an asset worth thousands—or even millions—what is the real source of that value?   The answer is simple: Intellectual Property.   What Makes a Trading Card Game (TCG) Different from Regular Card Games?   Many people think all card-based products are basically the same. From an IP and commercial perspective, this is a critical misconception.   A Trading Card Game (TCG) is fundamentally different from ordinary playing cards or board-game cards because it is designed with a built-in “economic engine.”   A TCG typically has these characteristics: High collectability value Structured rarity levels (common, rare, ultra rare, limited edition) Cards are actively traded among collectors and players A competitive strategy environment (“meta”) Cards are released in packs/boosters, meaning the contents are not fixed   This “non-fixed content” model is exactly why the word “trading” exists in TCG in the first place: people are expected to interact, trade, and buy to complete their collection and strengthen their competitive decks.   Meanwhile, traditional playing cards or typical board-game cards generally: Are standardized products Are mass-produced without rarity tiers Rarely appreciate in value Do not create global collector ecosystems   In other words, regular cards are tools for playing, while TCG products are ecosystems combining game + collectible culture + market demand + community + commerce.   Why Can TCG Cards Become Extremely Expensive?   The TCG boom is not accidental. Card values can multiply dramatically due to the combination of several powerful market factors: The Strength of the IP Behind the Card   A card is not just an illustration—it carries the identity of an IP: Characters universe/lore fandom history cultural relevance emotional attachment   Once an IP becomes iconic, its card products become symbols of popular culture, which pushes demand well beyond the original “game audience.” Measurable Scarcity (Rarity System) In TCG, rarity is not a side feature—it is part of the business design: limited prints first editions event promos discontinued series even misprints (which can become rarer than intended)   Scarcity creates competition, and competition raises prices. Condition and International Grading Standards   The collectible market is heavily influenced by grading systems, where professional institutions authenticate and score the condition of cards.   A card in near-perfect condition can be worth exponentially more than the same card in average condition.   This is also why valuable cards are often stored in protective slabs—signaling that they are treated like premium assets. Global Community and Cross-Border Demand   TCG demand is not limited to a single country. Buyers may include: Collectors competitive players Investors content creators resellers   When global demand rises, prices rise with it. Emotion: Nostalgia and Prestige   Collectibles operate on emotion. For some, TCG is childhood nostalgia. For others, rare cards are status symbols—similar to luxury watches or art.   This emotional layer explains why certain collectibles become “cultural trophies” rather than just products. A Mature Secondary Market   Card values rise because a highly active trading ecosystem exists: Marketplaces Auctions collector conventions specialty stores private premium transactions   When a secondary market becomes mature, collectible cards become liquid and tradeable assets.   When Collectibles Get Robbed: A Strong Market Signal   The Manhattan robbery is not only a crime story—it is a commercial signal.   Not every hobby product attracts armed robbery. This incident demonstrates an uncomfortable truth: Even criminals now view graded collectible cards as high-value targets.   This reinforces that the collectible card industry has entered the same category as: investment commodities premium collectible assets luxury goods And when that happens, the card itself is no longer the most important thing.   The real value lies in the ecosystem that created demand for the card.   That ecosystem is built on: Characters story worlds visual identity Trademarks artwork and copyrights product designs licensing strategy   In one phrase: IP ownership!   The Key Lesson for Global Creators: Your IP Is the Real Asset   The rise of TCG proves one major principle: If your IP is strong, its derivatives can become high-value commercial assets—often beyond your initial expectations.   A card product may look like a small item today. But behind it is an IP foundation capable of generating: game products Collectibles Merchandise digital content Events Collaborations licensing and franchising long-term brand equity   Why This Matters for Indonesia: A Growing Market Where IP Risks Are Real   Indonesia is one of Southeast Asia’s most active consumer markets for: pop culture merchandise games and esports communities character-driven brands anime-inspired creative content collectible ecosystems   This means Indonesia is not just a distribution destination—it is a market where: products can scale rapidly communities can grow quickly imitators can appear early   And here is the most crucial point for international creators: If you do not secure your IP in Indonesia early, your market entry may become legally risky later—right when your IP becomes popular.   Why You Should Register IP Early (Before the Hype Peaks)   When an IP becomes famous, four major risks typically…

Trademark Substantive Examination in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Trademark Substantive Examination in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, TrademarkLeave a comment

Indonesia is widely recognized as one of Southeast Asia’s most dynamic consumer markets. However, many foreign businesses entering the market underestimate one of the most decisive stages in brand protection: substantive trademark examination. Far from being a mere administrative checkpoint, Indonesia’s substantive examination can determine whether a trademark ever reaches registration—making it a critical strategic barrier.   This article reframes substantive examination not as a technicality, but as a strategic inflection point in Indonesian trademark protection.   Substantive Examination: What It Really Means in Indonesia   In jurisdictions like the United States or the European Union, substantive examination often focuses on clear-cut issues like descriptiveness or likelihood of confusion based on established databases. In Indonesia, the substantive examination conducted by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) goes beyond simple checklist matching: The examiner interprets trademark registrability against local market/consumer perception. Factors such as cultural meaning, language nuances, and common usage in Indonesian contexts may affect assessment. The system does not presume acceptance based on foreign registrations — even well-known marks can be questioned if they conflict with local rights.   In practice: the substantive examination is less a mechanical database comparison and more a decision on whether a mark should be protected under the Trademark Law in Indonesia.   Why This Matters for Trademark Applicants in Indonesia?   The first-to-file system in Indonesia has real consequences: whoever files first owns the mark — regardless of who used it first.   Prior use in other countries, including long-standing use and global reputation, does not guarantee Indonesian trademark rights. This contrasts with some jurisdictions where prior use and reputation carry weight.   For foreign owners, the implication is clear: Delay in filing = a risk of losing rights Waiting until “market entry” may be too late   Substantive examination is therefore not just a procedural hurdle — it is a race to secure rights before competitors or opportunistic filers do.   What Examiners Look At — From a Business Perspective   Market Perception and Distinctiveness Assessments consider: How the mark might be perceived by Indonesian consumers. Whether it merely describes goods/services (e.g., generic or laudatory terms). This is particularly relevant for brands entering sectors with high linguistic overlap or where a term has different connotations locally.Foreign companies often misjudge: English acronyms vs Indonesian understanding. Translations or transliterations of brand names. Common industry expressions are mistaken for distinctive marks. Conflict with Local Rights DGIP does not limit conflict analysis to exact matches: Phonetic similarity Conceptual similarity Visual resemblance Even if a mark appears unique globally, a local earlier filing with conceptual resemblance may trigger refusal. Strategic implication: Filing without a robust local clearance search exposes your brand to objection risks — and possible defeat.   Examiner Discretion and Legal Interpretation   DGIP examiners exercise considerable interpretive discretion, especially in: Evaluating whether a mark offends public order or morality. Distinguishing between descriptive and distinctive terms. Determining the likelihood of confusion.   This contrasts with rigid rule-based approaches in other jurisdictions. The practical upshot is: Well-structured legal argumentation can influence outcomes — but only if tailored to Indonesian legal and cultural contexts.   Foreign applicants often underprepare responses, leading to avoidable refusals.   Practical Risk Scenarios for Foreign Brands   Scenario 1: Foreign Mark with Local Meaning A brand that appears strong globally may inadvertently use a term that: Is commonly used in the Indonesian language. Describes goods/services when translated. Evokes unrelated meanings locally. Result: Higher risk of substantive refusal on distinctiveness grounds. Scenario 2: Overreliance on Global Reputation A well-known brand often assumes: “Our reputation makes the mark registrable anywhere.” In Indonesia: Reputation alone does not satisfy registrability. Formal proof of distinctiveness may be needed. Oppositions from local holders can succeed despite fame. Scenario 3: Class Expansion without Strategic Planning Broad class coverage can inadvertently trigger numerous conflicts and more intensive examiner scrutiny. Strategic class selection supported by business justification is essential.   Strategic Takeaways for Trademark Applicants in Indonesia   To navigate substantive examination effectively:   Conduct Robust Local Clearance Searches Not just global trademark databases — but: Indonesian language search. Common local usages. Unregistered but commercially used marks. Engage Early with Local Counsel Local IP consultants are not just procedural agents — they are: Interpreters of DGIP practice. Counselors on market perception issues. Defenders in substantive objections. Prepare Legal Arguments Focused on the Indonesian Context Generic responses based on foreign practice will fall short. Effective responses must: Cite relevant provisions within the Indonesian Trademark Law. Align with local consumer perception. Reference analogous DGIP decisions (jurisprudences) when available.   Rather than viewing substantive examination as a technicality, foreign brands should view it as: The primary legal gatekeeper to registration rights in Indonesia.   Failing to navigate it properly can lead to: Refusals and invalidations. Loss of rights to opportunistic filers. Increased legal costs and delay   Foreign companies expanding into ASEAN markets should treat Indonesia not as “just another filing destination” but as a distinct regime with its own legal logic and commercial risks.   Should you need more information on Indonesia’s Substantive Trademark Examination, please contact us through the channels below and receive a FREE 15-minute consultation.   📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📞 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889   About AFFA: Established in 1999, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights is an Indonesia-based boutique IP law firm serving international brands and innovators, offering full-service support—from prosecution and licensing to enforcement and commercialization—in Indonesia’s dynamic IP landscape. Our firm is widely recognized for its excellence, with accolades including “Best Boutique Law Firm in Indonesia” and “IP Enforcement Firm” at the Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025 by Asia Business Law Journal, as well as being listed as a “Recommended Firm 2024 — Indonesia” by WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals. For more information, please visit: www.affa.co.id.

Geographical Indications as a New Pillar of Indonesia’s Creative Economy: Transforming Local Heritage into High-Value Assets in 2026 - AFFA IPR

Geographical Indications as a New Pillar of Indonesia’s Creative Economy: Transforming Local Heritage into High-Value Assets in 2026

Intellectual Property, TrademarkLeave a comment

As Indonesia moves toward 2026, its economic development strategy is increasingly and consistently shifting toward an Intellectual Property–based economy. Alongside Trademarks, Patents, Industrial Designs, and Copyrights, Geographical Indications (GIs) have emerged as one of the most strategic and impactful IP instruments.   Through the strengthening of the Geographical Indications system, local heritage is no longer treated merely as protected natural or cultural assets, but is transformed into high-value economic assets capable of improving the welfare of producer communities and strengthening Indonesia’s position in the global market.   The role of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP)—together with local governments, universities, producer communities, and Intellectual Property Consultants—in educating the public has been central to this transformation, positioning Indonesia as a leading jurisdiction for Geographical Indications in ASEAN.   Indonesia Leads ASEAN in Geographical Indication Registrations   According to the latest data from DGIP, Indonesia currently ranks first in ASEAN in terms of the number of registered Geographical Indications. As of the end of 2025, a total of 261 Geographical Indications have been officially registered, consisting of: 246 domestic Geographical Indications, and 15 foreign Geographical Indications that have secured protection in Indonesia.   This data reinforces the findings of the World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025, which identify Indonesia as the country with the highest number of active GIs in the region.   This achievement reflects two significant developments simultaneously: The reputation, quality, and distinctive character of Indonesian regional products are increasingly recognized; and There is growing public awareness that Geographical Indications are not merely legal symbols, but strategic instruments for preserving economic value, authenticity, and regional competitiveness.   Geographical Indications as an Economic Strategy, Not Merely Name Protection   At the 30 Minutes with the Director General of Intellectual Property forum titled “Indonesia’s Geographical Indication Achievements & the Indonesian Proposal”, held on 16 December 2025, the Director General of Intellectual Property, Hermansyah Siregar, emphasized that the surge in GI registrations reflects a fundamental shift in how local communities perceive the potential of regional products.   According to him, local products are now viewed not merely as commodities, but as territorial identities with strong reputations, quality, and unique characteristics—attributes that have become key drivers of global market appeal.   This achievement is closely linked to DGIP’s comprehensive service reforms, including: full digitalization of registration processes; accelerated substantive examinations; and direct regional assistance through collaborative approaches.   The pentahelix approach—involving local governments, universities, researchers, and Geographical Indication Protection Communities—has been instrumental in accelerating registrations while ensuring high-quality product specification documentation.   Tangible Economic Impact: When GIs Increase Value and Prosperity   Globally, products bearing Geographical Indication labels command prices that are more than twice those of non-GI products. Consumers are not merely purchasing goods, but authenticity, reputation, and guaranteed origin.   This global trend is clearly reflected in Indonesia, as demonstrated by the following examples:   Gayo Arabica Coffee Experienced price increases and expanded export access, particularly to Europe, following GI protection. Bantaeng Arabica Coffee Prices rose from approximately IDR 350,000 to IDR 750,000, reaching up to IDR 1.5 million at exhibitions. Amed Bali Salt Prices increased by approximately 40%, with production areas developing into thematic tourism destinations. Kerinci Cinnamon Prices surged from IDR 40,000 to IDR 70,000. Sikka Ikat Weaving and Berau Cocoa Demonstrated strengthened market value and cultural identity following GI registration.   These facts confirm that Geographical Indications elevate the value of entire ecosystems, not merely the products themselves.   From Legal Protection to Geographical Indication Tourism   The development of Geographical Indications in Indonesia extends beyond registration and marketing. DGIP has also promoted the concept of “Geographical Indication Tourism,” which connects products with immersive experiences.   Through this approach, consumers and tourists are invited to: visit production sites; understand cultivation and processing methods; and engage with the stories and cultural values behind the products.   Local production centers are thus transformed into sustainable thematic tourism destinations, integrating the creative economy, tourism, and Intellectual Property protection.   Strict Standards and International Credibility   GI registration in Indonesia requires rigorous, science-based substantive examination. Validation relies on objective data—such as product quality testing, geographical conditions, and natural characteristics—to ensure a direct and verifiable link between the product and its region of origin.   This approach ensures that Indonesian Geographical Indications enjoy high credibility in international markets, far beyond mere administrative claims.   International Protection of Indonesian GIs: Toward Global Markets   At the international level, DGIP continues to actively expand protection for Indonesian Geographical Indications abroad. Beginning in 2027, through the implementation of the Indonesia–European Union Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IEU-CEPA), 72 Indonesian Geographical Indications will receive official protection within the European Union.   This framework is designed to prevent the recurrence of past disputes—such as the Gayo Arabica Coffee case in 2008—and to open pathways for GI protection in the handicraft sector, including traditional textiles and batik, in global markets.   This initiative underscores that Geographical Indications have become an integral component of Indonesia’s economic and cultural diplomacy.   Geographical Indications as a Multi-Generational Investment   Unlike short-term economic models, Geographical Indications offer sustainable, long-term benefits. As long as a product’s characteristics and regional link are preserved, GI protection can continue indefinitely and be passed down to future generations.   For local communities, GIs provide: legal certainty over product identity; enhanced bargaining power in the market; and economic opportunities that endure across generations.   Accordingly, Geographical Indications should be viewed not as a cost, but as a strategic long-term investment.   The strengthening of Geographical Indications demonstrates how Indonesia is consistently transforming local heritage into strategic economic assets. From increased product value and tourism development to international protection, GIs have become one of the core pillars of Indonesia’s creative economy.   The challenge ahead is no longer about potential, but about ensuring that more Indonesian local products move up the value chain through precise, measurable, and sustainable Geographical Indication protection.   Should you need more information on Geographical Indication protection in Indonesia and abroad, please contact us through the channels…