Indonesia New Trademark Registration Rules: Scanned Passport & Article of Association are Now Mandatory for Foreign Applicants - AFFA IPR

インドネシア新商標登録規則：外国出願人に対し、パスポート写しおよび定款の提出が必須に

Intellectual Property, TrademarkLeave a comment

インドネシア共和国政府は、商標登録に関する規則の改正を内容とする法務大臣規則第5号（2026年）を正式に施行しました。本規則は、従来の法務人権大臣規則第67号（2016年）（その改正を含む）に代わるものであり、現行の法的発展および実務上のニーズに適合しなくなったことを背景としています。 さらに、本規則は、雇用創出法（2023年法律第6号、いわゆるオムニバス法）を実施するものであり、同法により商標および地理的表示に関する法律の複数の規定が改正されています。   本規則の主な改正点 出願要件に関する主な変更は、第2条第4項において規定されており、商標出願に必要な書類が明確化されています。主なポイントは以下のとおりです。 個人出願人：身分証明書／パスポートの提出が必須化 個人出願人の本人確認書類として、以下の書類の提出が必須となりました： 国民身分証明書（KTP） 児童身分証明書（KIA） 一時滞在許可証（KITAS） 永久滞在許可証（KITAP） また、本規則により、KIA（児童身分証明書）が正式な本人確認書類として明確に認められました。 外国出願人については、直接出願であっても代理人を通じた出願であっても、パスポートのスキャン写しの提出が必要となります。 法人出願人：取締役の身分証明書／パスポートおよび定款の提出が必須 出願人が法人（国内外を問わず）の場合、以下の書類の提出が必須となります： 取締役の身分証明書またはパスポートのスキャン写し 会社の定款 優先権主張：認証翻訳の提出が必要 優先権を主張する場合、優先権証明書には、宣誓翻訳者によるインドネシア語訳を添付する必要があります。 本規則の施行により、施行日以降に提出されるすべての商標出願は、新たな要件に従う必要があります。一方、施行前に提出された出願については、従来の規則に基づき引き続き審査されます。   インドネシアにおける商標登録および保護に関する新規則についてご不明点がございましたら、下記の連絡先までお気軽にお問い合わせください。15分間の無料相談をご提供しております。   📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📞 お電話予約　 : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889   AFFAについて AFFA Intellectual Property Rightsは、1999年に設立されたインドネシア拠点のブティック型知的財産法律事務所です。国際的なブランドおよびイノベーターに対し、インドネシアのダイナミックな知的財産環境において、出願手続、ライセンス、権利行使、商業化に至るまで、包括的なサービスを提供しています。 当事務所はその卓越した実績により高く評価されており、Asia Business Law Journal主催の「Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025」において「インドネシア最優秀ブティック法律事務所」および「IPエンフォースメント・ファーム」を受賞しています。また、WTR 1000（世界有数の商標専門家ランキング）においても「Recommended Firm 2024 — Indonesia」として掲載されています。 詳細については、以下のウェブサイトをご覧ください：www.affa.co.id

The Ultimate Guide to Indonesia’s Latest Patent Regulation Under the Ministry of Law Regulation No. 6 Year 2026 on Patent Applications - AFFA IPR

The Ultimate Guide to Indonesia’s Latest Patent Regulation Under the Ministry of Law Regulation No. 6 Year 2026 on Patent Applications

Patent, Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

The Government of the Republic of Indonesia has recently enacted the Ministry of Law Regulation No. 6 of 2026 concerning Patent Applications (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation”), establishing an updated regulatory framework governing the procedural aspects of Patent filings before the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). The new regulation represents an important development in Indonesia’s Patent administration, reflecting the government’s continuing efforts to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and legal certainty of the national intellectual property system. Furthermore, the regulation serves as the implementing regulatory framework for the latest amendment to the Patent Law under the Law No. 65 Year 2024 on the Third Amendment of the Law No. 13 Year 2016 on Patents. From a practical perspective, the regulation introduces a number of procedural refinements and clarifications that are relevant to Patent applicants and practitioners managing Patent portfolios in Indonesia. In particular, the new provisions address several aspects of the Patent application process, including filing formalities, supporting documentation, and administrative procedures before the DGIP. As Indonesia continues to attract increasing levels of technological investment and innovation-driven activity, understanding these regulatory developments will be essential for applicants seeking effective and timely Patent protection in the jurisdiction. We herewith provide you with the summary of the Regulation for your perusal:   Minimum Information and Document Requirements for Application Article 2 of the Regulation stipulates the minimum information required for the submission of a Patent application. These requirements include the following: a. the date, month, and year of the Application letter; b. the name, full address, and nationality of the Inventor; c. the name, full address, and nationality of the Applicant, in the event that the Applicant is not a legal entity; d. the name and full address of the Applicant, in the event that the Applicant is a legal entity; e. the name and full address of the Attorney, in the event that the Application is filed through an Attorney; f. the title of the Invention; g. the name of the country and the Filing Date of the first Application, in the event that the Application is filed with a Priority Right; and h. the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) number and the international Filing Date, in the event that the Application is filed based on the Patent Cooperation Treaty.   Furthermore, an application should also be complemented with the following: a. Title of invention; b. Description of the Invention; c. Claims defining the scope of protection sought; d. Abstract of the Invention; e. Drawings, where the Application includes drawings necessary for the understanding of the Invention; f. Power of Attorney, where the Application is filed through a licensed IP attorney/agent; g. Assignment of Rights to the Invention, where the Application is filed by an Applicant who is not the Inventor; h. Certificate confirming the status of a micro or small enterprise, educational institution, or government research and development institution, issued by the competent authority, where the Applicant qualifies under such category – however, this only applies to local entity; i. Certificate of deposit of a microorganism, where the Application relates to a microorganism; and j. Statement from the Applicant regarding the origin of Genetic Resources and/or Traditional Knowledge, where the Invention involves Genetic Resources and/or Traditional Knowledge.   Sub Sections and Sequence Listinga. Field of the Invention A description and explanation of the technical field to which the Invention relates. b. Background of the Invention An explanation of the technical background of the Invention, known to the Applicant, is necessary for understanding, searching, and examining the Invention. This section may also refer to prior documents forming part of the technical background and may include an explanation of the technical advantages and benefits of the Invention compared with existing technologies in the same field. c. Brief Summary of the Invention A concise explanation describing the embodiment of the Invention and how it may be implemented. d. Brief Description of the DrawingsA short explanation of matters relating to the drawings, where the Application includes drawings. e. Detailed Description of the Invention A complete explanation of at least one method of carrying out the Invention. Where appropriate, the description may refer to the accompanying drawings and must explain how the Invention can be applied in industry or used in practice, particularly where the nature of the Invention makes it difficult to describe purely in words. f. Sequence Listing Where applicable, a sequence listing provided in a format compliant with international standards and submitted in Portable Document Format (PDF).   Both English and Indonesian Translations Must Be Submitted Article 7 of the Regulation stipulates that in the event that the Patent description is written in foreign languages other than English, the applicant will still be required to provide the English AND Indonesian translations within 30 days from the date of application. There is no extension of time for this submission, and we encourage the applicants to provide the required translations within the deadline.    National Phase Entry Deadline and Extension Under Article 37 of the Regulation, a Patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) designating Indonesia must be submitted to the Minister as the receiving authority for the national phase entry within a period of no later than 31 (thirty-one) months, calculated from: a. the international filing date; or b. the earliest priority date.   Where an application is submitted after the 31-month time limit, the applicant or their authorized representative may be granted an extension for filing the application, subject to the payment of the applicable fee in accordance with the prevailing regulations governing Non-Tax State Revenue (PNBP) within the Ministry of Law. The extension of time referred to above may be granted for a maximum period of 3 (three) months from the expiration of the filing deadline, calculated from the international filing date. Furthermore, an extension may be granted for a maximum period of 12 (twelve) months from the expiration of the filing deadline, calculated from the earliest priority date. If the application is filed beyond the extension periods…

Absolute Grounds for Trademark Refusal in Indonesia: Morality, Public Order & Descriptiveness - AFFA IPR

Absolute Grounds for Trademark Refusal in Indonesia: Morality, Public Order & Descriptiveness

Intellectual Property, TrademarkLeave a comment

Many business owners assume that as long as a name or logo has not been used by another party, it can be registered as a Trademark without any issue. In practice, however, during the examination process at the Indonesian Trademark Office (DGIP), there are several reasons why a Trademark Application may be rejected outright—even without considering whether there is an identical or similar Trademark owned by another party.   These reasons are known as “absolute grounds for refusal,” as stipulated in Article 20 of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications.   Rejected Without Comparing Other Trademarks   Absolute grounds for refusal relate to the substance of the Trademark itself, rather than conflicts with existing Trademarks. In practice, the most common reasons include:   Being contrary to morality Being contrary to public order Being descriptive of the goods or services   Understanding these three aspects is crucial so that business owners can avoid rejection from the very beginning.     Trademarks Contrary to Morality   One of the most fundamental reasons for rejecting a Trademark is when the sign is considered to violate societal norms of decency or morality.   This may include the use of words, images, or symbols that: Contain pornographic elements Insult or demean certain groups Include vulgar or inappropriate language Potentially offend cultural or religious values   The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the trademark registration system does not grant legal protection to signs that may harm social values within society.   Examples include: Names containing vulgar expressions Logos depicting symbols that may insult certain beliefs   Even if a sign may be considered creative from a marketing perspective, if it is deemed to violate public moral standards, the Trademark Application will most likely be rejected.     Trademarks Contrary to Public Order   In addition to morality concerns, DGIP may also reject signs considered to be contrary to public order.   Public order relates to the broader interests of society and social stability. Therefore, Trademarks containing the following elements may be refused:   The use of state symbols without authorization Unauthorized use of symbols of international organizations Elements that may provoke social or political conflict Signs that mislead the public regarding official authority or status   For example, the use of national emblems, national flags, or official government symbols in a Trademark is generally not allowed without special permission.   The reason is simple: the public may assume that the product has an official connection with a government institution or authority, when in fact it does not.     Descriptive Trademarks   Another very common reason for Trademark refusal is when the sign is descriptive.   A Trademark is considered descriptive when it directly describes: the type of goods or services the quality of the product the function of the product the characteristics of the product the geographical origin of the product   For example: The term “DELICIOUS COFFEE” for coffee products The term “FRESH” for beverages The term “SUPER FAST DELIVERY” for courier services   The problem with descriptive Trademarks is that such terms must remain available for use by other businesses to describe their own products.   If these common terms were granted exclusive rights to one party, other businesses would face difficulties describing their products fairly in the marketplace.   Therefore, Indonesian Trademark Law requires that a Trademark must possess distinctiveness in order to be registered.   Why Understanding Absolute Grounds for Refusal Matters   By analyzing these three grounds for refusal, you can not only minimize the risk of rejection but also gain several advantages:   The registration process can proceed more efficiently The risk of losing the registration fees can be minimized Your branding strategy can continue according to plan   Should you have further questions regarding the absolute grounds for refusal in Trademark registration in Indonesia or abroad, feel free to 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.

Add More Classes or Register a New Trademark? Which Strategy Is Right for Your Business? - AFFA IPR

Add More Classes or Register a New Trademark? Which Strategy Is Right for Your Business?

Intellectual Property, TrademarkLeave a comment

In an ever-evolving business environment, companies often expand their product lines or enter new business sectors. At this stage, an important question frequently arises: “Is it sufficient to extend Trademark protection by adding more classes, or is it better to register a new Trademark?” Understanding the difference between these strategies is crucial because the decision will affect the scope of legal protection, branding strategy, and future registration costs.   Understanding the Trademark Class System In Trademark registration, each application is filed for specific goods or services, which are categorized under the international classification system known as the Nice Classification. For example: Class 25: clothing Class 30: food products such as coffee or biscuits Class 35: trading or retail services Class 43: restaurant or café services If a business uses the same Trademark name across different types of goods or services, its protection can be extended by registering the Trademark in all relevant classes. However, in practice, not every business expansion should rely solely on this strategy. Related article: One Product with Multiple Trademarks: A Smart Protection Strategy or Simply Overkill?   3 Reasons Why Adding Classes May Be More Appropriate Expanding the classes of an existing Trademark is generally more appropriate when the brand identity remains the same and is consistently used across different products or services. Here are several common situations: Expanding Products Under the Same Trademark If a company expands its product line while still using the same Trademark name, adding classes becomes a logical choice. Example: A company owns the Trademark “NUSACOFFEE”, registered for coffee in Class 30. Later, the company begins selling: packaged coffee beans ready-to-drink coffee beverages coffee capsules In this case, Trademark protection can simply be expanded to the relevant classes without creating a new Trademark. A Strong and Well-Known Trademark If a Trademark is already widely recognized in the market, maintaining one consistent brand identity across related product categories can be an effective branding strategy. Example: An electronics company using the same Trademark for products such as: headphones speakers other audio devices In such situations, adding classes can strengthen the protection of an already reputable Trademark. Expanding into Related Services Many businesses initially sell products and later expand into related services. Example: a cosmetics manufacturer opening beauty treatment services a coffee producer opening a coffee shop In such cases, registering the Trademark in additional service classes can extend protection without creating a new brand.   5 Reasons Why Registering a New Trademark May Be the Better Choice On the other hand, there are many situations where registering a new Trademark is the more appropriate strategy rather than simply adding more classes. Different Target Markets If a new product targets a different consumer segment, using the same Trademark may not be effective. Example: A company with an energy drink brand targeting young consumers may want to enter the premium health beverage market aimed at adults. In this situation, a new Trademark may help build a distinct brand identity. Significant Differences in Product Characteristics Products that are fundamentally different often require different branding strategies. Example: A technology company may have a main Trademark for hardware products, but when launching a subscription-based software service, it may choose a new Trademark to create clearer market positioning. Multi-Brand Strategy Many large companies deliberately adopt a multi-brand strategy to reach different market segments. Example: A single company may own several Trademarks within the same product category but with different positioning, such as: premium brand mid-range brand budget brand This strategy allows companies to avoid conflicts in brand image across products. Reducing Risk if One Brand Faces Problems Using one Trademark across too many product categories may increase business risk. If one day: a legal dispute arises the brand’s reputation declines a product faces quality issues the negative impact could spread to all product lines. Having separate Trademarks allows companies to isolate and manage such risks more effectively. Collaboration or New Sub-Brands If a new product is developed in collaboration with another party or launched as a special project, using a new Trademark may be more appropriate. This approach makes it easier to manage: Trademark ownership licensing agreements long-term brand management.   Or Combine Both Strategies In modern business practice, many companies do not rely on only one strategy. Instead, they combine both approaches. For example, maintaining a master brand while introducing sub-brands or new Trademarks for specific products. With this approach, companies can: preserve the strength of the main brand while building more specific product identities. Ultimately, the decision between adding classes or registering a new Trademark should not be based solely on administrative considerations. It should also take into account the company’s long-term business and branding strategy. Should you need more information regarding Trademark registration strategies in Indonesia or internationally, feel free to 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.

How Does Indonesia Stand in the Latest USTR “Notorious Markets” Report? - AFFA IPR

How Does Indonesia Stand in the Latest USTR “Notorious Markets” Report?

Intellectual Property, TrademarkLeave a comment

Every year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes the “Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy,” a report containing findings on various online and physical markets around the world that are suspected of facilitating large-scale Trademark counterfeiting and Copyright piracy. The primary purpose of this report is to encourage governments, industry stakeholders, and platform operators worldwide to strengthen their efforts in preventing intellectual property violations, while also raising public awareness about the negative impact of piracy and counterfeit goods on the global economy. In the latest 2025 Notorious Markets List (NML), released on March 3, 2026, USTR identified 37 online markets and 32 physical markets that are considered to have significant levels of intellectual property infringement activity. So, where does Indonesia stand in this latest report?   Sports Broadcasting Piracy and the Digital Ecosystem Become Major Concerns Many people may still be unaware that sports broadcasts, just like films or television series, are protected by Copyright. This means that broadcasting or distributing such content across various platforms without authorization and without paying the required licensing fees for broadcasting rights constitutes Copyright infringement. For those aware of this, it may already be apparent that major global sporting events, such as MotoGP or the FIFA World Cup, are becoming increasingly difficult to watch without subscribing to specific platforms. This situation arises because Copyright owners or rights holders for sports broadcasts set substantial licensing fees for these events. According to USTR, the global valuation of sports broadcasting rights reached approximately USD 62.6 billion in 2024. As a result, any unauthorized “leak” or illegal streaming of such broadcasts is considered to cause significant economic losses to the global entertainment industry, making piracy of sports content a serious threat to both the creative industry and the broadcasting business model.   The report also highlights how the modern digital ecosystem—including hosting providers, streaming platforms, cyberlockers, and online advertising networks—can become channels for distributing pirated content if they lack adequate monitoring and complaint mechanisms.   E-Commerce and Social Media Become Key Channels for Counterfeit Goods Another important finding in the report is the shift in counterfeit goods distribution from physical markets to digital platforms, particularly through: e-commerce marketplaces social commerce platforms influencer marketing misleading digital advertisements Intellectual property rights holders have reported that fake advertisements and influencer promotions on social media are increasingly being used to direct consumers to counterfeit or pirated products. However, the report also notes that several digital platforms have begun adopting stronger anti-counterfeiting policies, such as: seller identity verification faster notice-and-takedown systems automated detection tools for counterfeit products enhanced cooperation with rights holders and law enforcement authorities These measures are considered essential to creating a safer digital commerce ecosystem for both consumers and Trademark owners.   What About Indonesia? In previous editions of the report, Indonesia had been highlighted due to the circulation of counterfeit goods in both physical markets and e-commerce platforms. In the latest report, however, the spotlight is primarily on physical markets, while Indonesian e-commerce platforms are no longer a major focus of concern. This may indicate that improvements made by the Indonesian government, digital platforms, and Trademark owners are beginning to show positive results, particularly in: strengthening anti-counterfeiting policies within marketplaces cooperation with Trademark owners mechanisms for removing infringing product listings increasing public awareness of counterfeit products Although challenges in intellectual property enforcement remain, the reduced scrutiny of Indonesia’s e-commerce sector in the latest report represents a significant development.   What Steps Can Be Taken Next? For businesses—especially those engaged in international trade—reports such as the Notorious Markets List carry several important implications: They indicate the level of intellectual property infringement risk in certain markets or countries, helping businesses plan preventive measures and Trademark protection strategies. They influence the perception of investors and international trading partners, as countries with higher infringement risks may find it harder to attract investment. They encourage greater compliance and monitoring by digital platforms, since intellectual property violations in one country or region are increasingly monitored on a global scale.   Should you have questions regarding the latest USTR Notorious Markets report or about trademark protection in Indonesia and abroad, please 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   Source: USTR “Notorious Markets” 2025   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.

Indonesia New Trademark Registration Rules: Scanned Passport & Article of Association are Now Mandatory for Foreign Applicants - AFFA IPR

Indonesia New Trademark Registration Rules: Scanned Passport & Article of Association are Now Mandatory for Foreign Applicants

Trademark, Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

The Government of the Republic of Indonesia has officially enacted Minister of Law Regulation (Permenkum) No. 5 of 2026, which introduces updates to the regulations governing Trademark registration in Indonesia. This regulation replaces Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 67 of 2016 (including its amendments), which is considered no longer aligned with current legal developments and practical needs. Furthermore, this new regulation implements Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation (UU Cipta Kerja), which amended several provisions of the Trademark and Geographical Indications Law.   What’s New in This Regulation? Many of the general changes to application requirements are set out in Article 2, Paragraph (4), which regulates the required documents for Trademark applications. The key updates include: Identity Card/ Passport Becomes a Mandatory Document For applicant identification documents, the following are now mandatory for individual applicants: National Identity Card (KTP) Child Identity Card (KIA) Limited Stay Permit Card (KITAS) Permanent Stay Permit Card (KITAP) The new regulation also explicitly recognizes the KIA as a valid form of identification.For foreign applicants, whether filing directly or through an attorney, a scanned copy of the passport must be submitted. Director’s Identity Card/ Passport and Article of Association Required for Corporate Applicants If the applicant is a legal entity or company, whether domestic or foreign, the following documents are now mandatory: A scanned copy of the director’s Identity card/ passport, and The articles of association of the company. Certified Translation for Priority Rights If an application claims Priority Rights, the priority document must be accompanied by an Indonesian translation prepared by a sworn translator. With the enactment of this regulation, all Trademark applications filed after the regulation’s promulgation date must comply with these new requirements. Applications submitted before the regulation came into effect will continue to be processed under the previous rules.   Should you have questions regarding the new regulations on Trademark registration and protection in Indonesia, 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.

Examination of Responses to a Provisional Refusal in Indonesia: Understanding the Different Types of Responses and Their Effectiveness - AFFA IPR

Examination of Responses to a Provisional Refusal in Indonesia: Understanding the Different Types of Responses and Their Effectiveness

Intellectual Property, TrademarkLeave a comment

In the Trademark registration process in Indonesia, the issuance of a “Provisional Refusal” does not necessarily mark the end of the road. However, many applicants mistakenly assume that every response has an equal chance of overturning the examiner’s decision. In reality, not all responses are treated the same, and not all will be accepted. This article discusses how examiners assess responses to a provisional refusal, the types of responses recognized under the examination guidelines, and when a response is effective—and when it is ultimately futile.   How Examiners Assess an Applicant’s Response Under the Substantive Examination Guidelines, an applicant’s response is not reviewed merely as a matter of formality. The examiner will: Re-examine the basis of the provisional refusal; Review the type of response submitted; Assess whether the response, from a legal and factual standpoint, adequately addresses the grounds for refusal; and Render a final decision: to accept the application, reject it, or uphold the refusal. In other words, the examination of a response is a substantive evaluation, not a simple administrative confirmation.   Types of Responses to a Provisional Refusal Based on the examination guidelines, there are several forms of responses commonly submitted by applicants. However, their effectiveness largely depends on the nature of the refusal being faced. Agreement with the Provisional Refusal This is the simplest form of response, yet often the most rational. When is it effective? Where the refusal is based on clear absolute grounds (e.g., contrary to morality, misleading, or constituting a common sign); or Where the mark clearly lacks distinctiveness and cannot realistically be remedied through argumentation. When is it a wise option? When proceeding further would only increase costs and time without any realistic prospect of success. Amendment or Formal Changes Amendments may include: Clarification of the mark description; Adjustment of the list of goods and/or services; or Correction of administrative errors. When is it effective? If the refusal is formal or administrative in nature; or If the examiner expressly requests limited clarification or correction. Arguments or Written Rebuttals to the Provisional Refusal This is the most frequently submitted type of response, and also the one that most often fails if not prepared properly. When is it effective? When the arguments directly address the legal grounds of the refusal; When supported by visual, phonetic, and/or conceptual analysis; When able to demonstrate genuine differences in the relevant goods and/or services; and When supported by relevant jurisprudence that can be relied upon as precedent. Letter of Consent (Statement of No Objection) This type of letter is often misunderstood as a “shortcut,” even though some examiners may occasionally accept it. When is it effective? In certain cases involving relative grounds of refusal; Where it does not give rise to public confusion; Where the mark is still considered sufficiently distinctive; and Where there is a business relationship between the applicant and the owner of the cited mark (e.g., parent and subsidiary companies). Request for Extension of Time A request for extension may be submitted, but it is limited in nature and not always granted. When is it effective? Where the applicant genuinely requires additional time to prepare supporting documents; or Where there are relevant parallel proceedings underway.   When Is a Response Effective, and When Is It a Strategic Choice to Refrain? Grounds for Refusal Effective Response Absolute Grounds Agreement with the Refusal Formal Deficiencies Amendment (Making Corrections) Limited (Partial) Similarity Measured Legal Argumentation Strong Similarity Letter of Consent, but often unsuccessful Common / Descriptive Signs Arguments are almost always futile   A response to a provisional refusal is not merely a procedural obligation, but a strategic decision. Submitting an inappropriate response not only fails to change the outcome, but also consumes time and resources without adding value.   In practice, success is not determined by the length of the response, but by the quality of the arguments, the clarity and accuracy of the legal basis, and the relevance of the supporting evidence presented.   Should you require further information on how to respond to a Trademark provisional refusal in Indonesia or abroad, please 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.

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.

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

Trademark, Intellectual PropertyLeave 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…