A Complete Guide to Filing a Patent Appeal in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

A Complete Guide to Filing a Patent Appeal in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

In the practice of Patent registration in Indonesia, not all applications result in the grant of a Patent. It is not uncommon for applicants to face rejections, corrections to the description and claims, or even objections to Patent grant decisions. To ensure fairness, accuracy, accountability, and public trust in the Patent protection system, the law provides a legal mechanism in the form of a Patent Appeal Application through the Patent Appeal Commission.   The Patent Appeal Commission serves as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism outside of litigation, allowing applicants or interested parties to obtain an independent and objective reassessment of the previous examination results. This mechanism also ensures consistency and technical specialization, as the examination is conducted by a panel consisting of Senior Patent Examiners and subject-matter experts.   The Patent Appeal Commission as a Dispute Resolution Option The Patent Appeal Commission provides a mechanism for: Independent review Non-litigation dispute resolution before escalation to court Assessment based on the principles of: Fairness and accuracy Accountability and trust Consistency and specialization Accordingly, the Patent Appeal Commission acts as a guardian of the quality of national Patent decisions.   Legal Basis for Filing a Patent Appeal Pursuant to Article 67 of Law Number 65 of 2024, a Patent Appeal must be submitted in writing to the Patent Appeal Commission and is subject to a fee for appeals against: Rejection of a Patent Application Corrections to the description, claims, and/or drawings after the Patent has been granted Patent grant decisions   The parties entitled to file a Patent Appeal are the Applicant or their Authorized Representative, as well as any other interested party or their Authorized Representative.   Types of Patent Appeal Applications Appeal Against Rejection of a Patent Application Rejection of an application includes situations where: The invention fails to meet the requirements of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, Article 24 paragraph (3), Article 25 paragraphs (3) and (4), Article 26, Article 39 paragraph (2), Articles 40 and 41 of Law No. 13 of 2016; or In the case of a Simple Patent (Utility Model), the invention fails to meet the requirements of Articles 121 and 122 paragraph (1). Appeal Against Corrections Corrections after a Patent has been granted are limited to: Restriction of claim scope Correction of translation errors in the description Clarification of ambiguous or unclear descriptions Appeal Against Patent Grant Decisions Patent grant decisions include cases where: The invention is deemed to have complied with Article 54 and Article 24 paragraph (3) of Law No. 13 of 2016; or In the case of a Simple Patent (Utility Model), the invention is deemed to have complied with Articles 121 and 122 paragraph (1).   Time Limits for Filing a Patent Appeal (As regulated under Articles 68–70 of Law No. 65 of 2024) Appeal against rejection of the application: Must be filed within 3 months from the date the rejection notice is issued. Appeal against corrections after Patent grant: Must be filed within 3 months from the date the Patent Approval Notice is issued. Appeal against Patent Grant: Must be filed within 9 months from the date the Patent is officially granted.   Appeal Forms and Required Documents The appeal form can be downloaded from the official Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) website and must be accompanied by the following mandatory documents: A detailed written explanation of the appeal reasons Supporting evidence and legal arguments Proof of payment Copies of the disputed Description, Claims, and Drawings Rejection or Patent grant notification letter Copies of the originally submitted Description, Claims, and Drawings Copies of all substantive examination correspondence Power of Attorney (if filed through an Attorney/Representative)   Permissible Grounds for Filing a Patent Appeal The appeal must not contain new inventions or broaden the scope of protection, and must be presented in: A clear correction matrix A complete explanation of objections to the Patent grant decision   Examination by the Patent Appeal Commission Every Patent Appeal Application must undergo: Administrative examination Substantive examination   For this purpose, the Chairperson of the Patent Appeal Commission forms an odd-numbered Appeal Panel, consisting of: Senior Patent Examiners with the rank of ‘Pembina Utama Muda.’ Subject-matter experts in accordance with technical requirements.   Authority of the Patent Appeal Commission The Commission has the authority to: Summon the Applicant, Patent Holder, and Examiner Summon witnesses and experts Conduct further and on-site examinations Request additional evidence Issue decisions on Patent appeal applications   Decision of the Patent Appeal Commission Is determined based on the results of substantive examination Is pronounced in an open court session for the public Is recorded and announced by the Minister Is officially delivered to the parties or their Authorized Representatives   Legal Actions After the Patent Appeal Commission Decision After the Patent Appeal Commission decision is pronounced and delivered to the parties, two legal consequences may arise: If the appeal is granted, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) is obligated to implement the decision in accordance with its ruling, whether by continuing the patent grant process, conducting the ordered corrections, or validating the disputed Patent. In this case, the Patent dispute is deemed administratively resolved. If the appeal is rejected, the interested party retains the right to pursue further legal remedies through a lawsuit before the Commercial Court. This constitutes the litigation stage, which may be pursued if the applicant believes the Appeal Commission’s decision still infringes upon their legal rights. Accordingly, the Patent Appeal Commission functions as the final administrative safeguard before a patent dispute proceeds to judicial litigation.   Should you need further information regarding Patent Appeal Applications in Indonesia, please contact us through the channels below and get a FREE 15-minute consultation:   📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📞 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889

Latest WIPO Indicators 2025: Indonesia’s Rising! - AFFA IPR

Latest WIPO Indicators 2025: Indonesia’s Rising!

Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

Indonesia demonstrated notable activity and substantial growth across various Intellectual Property (IP) domains in 2024, particularly in Utility Models (UM), Industrial Designs, and Trademarks, according to the World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025 report.   Indonesia is classified as an upper-middle-income economy. Its IP performance often reflects a surge in filings, especially when compared to other countries in similar income brackets or neighboring regions.   Patent Activity   Source: World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025 Indonesia’s IP Office significantly advanced its global standing in Patent Applications in 2024: Office Ranking: Indonesia rose one place to 17th among the world’s top 20 IP Offices. Application Volume and Growth: The Indonesian IP Office received 10,902 patent applications in 2024. This total represented a 3.3% growth rate from 2023. Growth Drivers: The overall growth was primarily driven by Non-Resident Applications, which contributed 2.9 percentage points to the total growth, while Resident Applications contributed 0.4 percentage points. Non-Resident Dependence: Applications filed by Non-Resident Applicants accounted for a significant share of activity, making up 79.0% of total applications received by Indonesia’s IP Office. Origin of Non-Resident Filings: Applicants residing in Japan held the largest share of Non-Resident Filings in Indonesia, accounting for 23.6% of those applications. Patent Grants: In 2024, Indonesia granted 5,812 Patents. Similar to applications, Non-Resident Grants dominated, representing 89.3% of all Patents Granted.   Simple Patents or Utility Models (UM) Performance   Source: World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025 Indonesia stands out globally as a major source of utility model filings: Origin Rank and Volume: Applicants residing in Indonesia filed 4,842 UM applications in 2024, ranking Indonesia as the 4th largest origin worldwide! Growth Rate: Indonesia recorded a double-digit growth rate of +10.9% for UM applications by origin in 2024 compared to 2023. Trend: As a middle-income country, Indonesia saw a substantial increase in the volume of UM filings over the recent decade.   Trademark Activity   Source: World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025 In Trademark filings, Indonesia showed strong domestic growth but displayed comparatively low intensity relative to its population size: Office Ranking and Volume: Indonesia ranked 15th among the top 20 offices for Trademark Application class counts in 2024, receiving 166,118 counts. Growth Driver (Office): The Indonesian office experienced a total growth rate of 9.0% in Trademark application class counts (2023–2024), overwhelmingly driven by resident applications, which accounted for 8.6 percentage points of the increase. Origin Growth: As an origin, Indonesia recorded a considerable Trademark filing increase of +8.4% in 2024, which was driven by growth in both resident filing and applications filed abroad. Filing Intensity (Per Capita): Indonesia recorded one of the lowest ratios of resident Trademark application class counts per million population, ranging between approximately 350 and 730 classes per million population in 2024 (specifically, 353 per million population). Industry Focus: The Indonesian IP Office, along with those in China, India, and Viet Nam, reported the lowest share of applications related to service classes (ranging between 28% and 32%), indicating a focus on goods. Specifically, the share of services classes in Indonesia was 28.3%. Source: World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025   Registration Class Counts: The Indonesian office recorded 154,751 registration class counts in 2024. Trademarks in Force: A total of 897,580 trademark registrations were actively in force in Indonesia in 2024.   Industrial Design Activity   Source: World Intellectual Property Indicators 2025   Indonesia was a leader in application design growth in 2024: Office Growth: Indonesia’s office reported one of the largest growth rates among the top 20 offices, posting an increase of 25.3% in Application Design counts in 2024. This increase was primarily driven by resident applicants, who contributed 15.5 percentage points to the growth. Indonesia ranked 18th in total Application Design counts, receiving 7,926 counts. Origin Growth: Applicants residing in Indonesia recorded a pronounced increase in Industrial Design counts by origin, growing by +18.9% in 2024. Filing Intensity (Per GDP): Indonesia had a notably low ratio of resident design count per USD 100 billion of GDP, standing at 141. Designs in Force: The average age of design registrations in force in Indonesia was 4.5 years in 2024, the lowest reported among selected offices. Development Level: Indonesia was situated close to the typical trend line when comparing resident application design count per capita against GDP per capita (2020–2024), suggesting its design activity level is consistent with its economic development level.   Geographical Indications (GI)   Indonesia reported 182 Geographical Indications in force in 2024. All of these GIs were protected through a national sui-generis system, meaning 100% of the GIs in force were designated as National GIs.   Comparison of Indonesia’s IP Performance with Selected Peers (2024) To better understand Indonesia’s performance, the table below compares its key metrics with other major upper-middle-income economies (Brazil, Türkiye) and regional neighbours (Thailand, Viet Nam, Philippines), focusing on application volumes and growth across Patents, Utility Models (UM), Trademarks, and Industrial Designs, as well as IP filing intensity relative to GDP.   IP Indicator Indonesia Brazil Türkiye Thailand Viet Nam Philippines Income Classification Upper Middle Upper Middle Upper Middle Lower Middle Lower Middle Upper Middle Patent Apps (Office Total) 10,902 (Rank 17th) 25,597 (Rank 11th) 10,351 (Rank 18th) 8,727 9,904 4,571 Patent Apps Growth (Office) 3.3% 0.9% 18.4% 1.4% 4.7% –6.5% UM Apps (Origin Rank/Volume) 4th (4,842) 10th (3,047) 9th (3,126) 5th (4,227) 19th (675) 13th (1,659) UM Apps Growth (Origin) 10.9% 27.1% –7.0% 10.2% 12.1% –15.7% Trademark Apps (Office Class Count) 166,118 (Rank 15th) 468,667 (Rank 5th) 399,023 (Rank 7th) 73,552 126,733 (Rank 18th) 67,868 Trademark Apps Growth (Office) 9.0% 9.7% 0.1% 12.8% 8.6% 4.1% Design Apps Growth (Office) 25.3% 27.3% –16.6% 19.4% 20.2% 40.1% Resident Design Count per $100B GDP 141 142 1,387 340 N/A N/A   Key Comparative Insights   Patent Focus: Indonesia demonstrated resilience in its overall Patent Application growth (3.3%) and achieved a higher office ranking (17th). However, Indonesia remains highly dependent on non-resident filings (79.0% non-resident share), particularly from Japan (23.6%). In contrast, Viet Nam (9,904 applications) achieved faster overall Patent growth (4.7%), while Türkiye saw the highest…

Mediation as a Strategic Solution: Transforming the Way Indonesia Resolves Intellectual Property Disputes - AFFA IPR

Mediation as a Strategic Solution: Transforming the Way Indonesia Resolves Intellectual Property Disputes

Intellectual PropertyLeave a comment

Indonesia is increasingly positioning Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), particularly mediation, as a leading strategy for resolving Intellectual Property (IP) disputes. This approach prioritises faster, more efficient, and non-confrontational solutions—aligning with a restorative justice philosophy that focuses on preserving business relationships and safeguarding the commercial value of a brand or creative work.   The Institutional Framework: DGIP’s Role   The primary governmental body facilitating IP mediation in Indonesia is the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), which operates under the Ministry of Law. Within the DGIP’s Directorate of Law Enforcement, the Subdirectorate of Prevention and Alternative Dispute plays a central role in managing these non-litigious processes.   The Working Team for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Tim Kerja Penyelesaian Sengketa Alternatif) within this Subdirectorate is responsible for receiving and processing requests for mediation or facilitation. This team organises the mediation proceedings, including scheduling and communication, and its members act as neutral mediators. The sources note that the DGIP currently has 7 mediators within the Subdirectorate of Prevention and Alternative Dispute, alongside 29 mediators specialising in IP across the 29 Regional Offices of the Ministry of Law.   Data from 2021 to 2025 indicates that the team handles disputes involving various IP types, including Copyright, Trademarks, Patents, and Industrial Designs.   Legal Basis: Mandatory vs. Voluntary Mediation   The resolution of IP disputes in Indonesia can generally be pursued through ADR, arbitration, or the Commercial Court (Pengadilan Niaga). However, specific IP laws dictate whether mediation is mandatory or optional before pursuing other legal avenues.   When Mediation is Mandatory   For certain types of disputes, mediation must be pursued first: Copyright: Except for disputes involving piracy, if the parties are known and located within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, they must first attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation before proceeding with a criminal lawsuit. Patents: In cases involving criminal prosecution for infringement of a Patent or Simple Patent, the parties must first resolve the issue through mediation.   When Mediation is Optional   For several other IP types, mediation is an option alongside arbitration or other forms of ADR: Integrated Circuit Layout Designs (Law No. 32/2000) Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Law No. 20/2016) Industrial Designs (Law No. 31/2000) Trade Secrets (Law No. 30/2000)   The Mediation Process and Requirements   The process is managed by the Working Team for Alternative Dispute Resolution. Mediation can be conducted either Offline or Online. To initiate the process, the applicant for mediation is required to submit several administrative documents: A formal letter of application for Mediation. The identities of the Parties and/or their legal proxies. The addresses of the Parties. A brief summary description of the Intellectual Property dispute. Any other necessary supporting documents. Crucially, if the applicant is the party allegedly committing the IP infringement, they are not required to attach proof of Intellectual Property ownership.   Core Principles Guiding IP Mediation   The effectiveness of mediation rests on several key principles designed to ensure fairness, trust, and autonomy:   Principle Description Voluntary  The parties must agree voluntarily to mediation, with no coercion to attend, negotiate, or reach a settlement. The outcome should genuinely reflect the will of the parties. Confidentiality All information, documents, and statements shared during mediation are confidential. They cannot be used as evidence in court without the explicit agreement of the parties, which encourages honest dialogue. Mediator Neutrality The mediator must remain impartial and cannot hold any personal interest in the outcome of the dispute. This is vital for maintaining the trust of both sides. Equality of Parties All parties are considered equal, regardless of perceived strength. They possess the same right to be heard, and the mediator must ensure no party is dominated or pressured. Openness and Good Faith  Parties are expected to be open in presenting facts and demonstrate a sincere intention to seek a resolution (good faith). Good faith is essential for achieving a sincere and lasting agreement. Justice and Benefit The settlement reached should be fair and provide benefits to both parties. The aim is a “win-win solution,” ensuring no party is disproportionately harmed. Party Autonomy  The mediator’s role is strictly facilitative; they do not issue a ruling. The ultimate decision to agree, reject, or postpone a settlement rests entirely with the parties themselves.   Advantages of Choosing Mediation   Mediation is highly encouraged as an ADR mechanism due to the significant advantages it offers compared to traditional litigation: It achieves a fast and efficient resolution. It is cost-effective. It helps maintain good relationships between the disputing parties. It inherently seeks a Win–Win Solution. It allows for flexibility in solutions, accommodating unique needs. It helps preserve reputation and public image. It encourages legal awareness and compliance. It reduces the burden on law enforcement agencies and the courts.   Challenges and the Restorative Approach   Despite its benefits, the mediation process can face practical difficulties. Parties may be hindered by geographical distance or difficulties in arranging a common time to meet. For Online Mediation specifically, a key challenge is the lack of technological infrastructure to facilitate the signing of settlement documents by parties located far apart.   The DGIP views mediation not merely as a procedural alternative, but as a mechanism rooted in restorative justice. The underlying philosophy suggests that many IP disputes arise from lack of understanding rather than malicious intent. By providing a structured, neutral platform, mediation serves as “a bridge to restore, not punish,” and aims to “build back trust, not destroy it,” thereby supporting effective and efficient IP law enforcement.   Should you need more information on Alternative Dispute Resolution for Intellectual Property Disputes in Indonesia, contact us through the channels below and get a FREE 15-minute consultation!   📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📞 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889   Source: Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP)

Maldives Adopts Its First Trademark Act: 12-Month Transition Period for Brand Owners - AFFA IPR

Maldives Adopts Its First Trademark Act: 12-Month Transition Period for Brand Owners

Intellectual Property, TrademarkLeave a comment

On 11 November 2025, the President of the Maldives, Dr. Mohamed Muizzu, ratified the Trademark Bill, which has now been promulgated as the Trademark Act (Law No. 19/2025) through publication in the Government Gazette.   The Act will enter into force on 11 November 2026, followed by a 12-month transition period for existing Trademark owners who have been relying on cautionary notices. This milestone marks the establishment of the country’s first comprehensive, registration-based Trademark protection system, replacing the long-standing practice of relying on cautionary notice publications.   Key Features of the New Trademark Act First-to-File System Trademark rights will be determined based on the filing date, with examination on both absolute and relative grounds. Additional safeguards are provided for well-known marks. Term of Protection and Renewal Registered Trademarks will be valid for 10 years from the filing or registration date and may be renewed indefinitely in successive 10-year periods. Transition Requirements for Existing Owners Brand owners currently relying on cautionary notices must file formal Trademark applications within 12 months from 11 November 2026 to maintain uninterrupted protection. Strengthened Enforcement Mechanisms The Act equips rights holders with a full suite of enforcement tools, including: Civil actions (injunctions, damages, and destruction or removal of infringing goods); Criminal penalties for counterfeiting; and Customs border measures to block the importation of infringing products. Issuance of Implementing Regulations Competent authorities are required to publish implementing regulations and guidelines in the Government Gazette within 6 months of the Act taking effect.   What Should Businesses Do Now? Businesses operating in or entering the Maldivian market are advised to: Review Your Trademark Portfolio Identify Trademarks currently protected only through cautionary notices. Prepare for Re-Registration Prepare documentation for filing once the 12-month transition window opens on 11 November 2026 to ensure continuity of protection. Update Internal IP Processes Align brand protection and enforcement strategies with the upcoming registration-based regime.   Should you need more information on Trademark registration in the Maldives or other international jurisdictions, contact us through the channels below and get a FREE 15-minute consultation!   📩 E-Mail : [email protected] 📞 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889

Expediting Your Patent Application in Indonesia: The DGIP–JPO Patent Prosecution Highway

Patent, Intellectual Property

In the race for innovation, speed is everything. According to statistical data published by the Japan Patent Office (JPO), among the ASEAN6 Patent Offices (the six ASEAN countries with the highest Patent rankings), the Directorate General of Intellectual Property of Indonesia (DGIP) is recorded as the office with the shortest total pendency—meaning the duration from filing to grant—at only around 3.4 years. In contrast, other ASEAN Patent Offices generally remain in the range of 4.5 to 7 years. This figure aligns with Indonesia’s ongoing efforts to accelerate examination, including through the utilization of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) scheme.   What is even more interesting is that, as the only office implementing PPH with all ASEAN6 Patent Offices, the JPO serves as a strategic gateway for Applicants seeking protection across the ASEAN region. The JPO reports the following statistics: The time to obtain a patent grant in Japan through the fast-track route can be achieved in approximately 4.9 months; and Patent grants in ASEAN Offices through the PPH scheme can be achieved in around 1 year, with grant rates exceeding 90%.     In addition to illustrating examination performance, JPO’s data also shows that the PPH route with DGIP as the Office of Later Examination (OLE) has been actively utilized by international Applicants. Since the program’s initiation in 2013, the number of PPH requests designating DGIP as the OLE has consistently remained in the hundreds per year, reaching a peak in 2019. Although the numbers later declined, they have re-emerged significantly in 2024. This indicates that the DGIP–JPO PPH scheme is not merely a procedural option on paper, but a pathway genuinely used by global businesses when entering the Indonesian and ASEAN markets.   Given this background and the fact that DGIP records the fastest total pendency among the ASEAN6, Applicants can structure the following two-step strategy: Designate Japan as the primary examination hub, either as the first filing country or as the International Searching Authority (ISA/JP) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT); and Utilize the PPH scheme for accelerated access to ASEAN, with Indonesia as a key destination given its comparatively shorter time to grant.   This combination creates a highly compelling narrative for businesses and technology owners. The JPO provides fast and high-quality examination at the “upstream” stage, while DGIP offers one of the fastest routes to grant in the “downstream” ASEAN region. For companies that view ASEAN as a growth market, this combination can significantly reduce risks and shorten timelines in the patent application process.   Number of PPH requests with DGIP as the Office of Later Examination (OLE) per PPH application year. Source: Japan Patent Office (JPO), “PPH Statistics.”   How Does the DGIP–JPO PPH Actually Work?   In simple terms, the PPH is a cooperative framework between Patent Offices that allows one Office to rely on the search and examination results produced by another. In essence, patent examination under the PPH can be accelerated at DGIP by leveraging the examination work products issued by the JPO.   Institutionally, the DGIP–JPO PPH scheme did not emerge overnight. The trial phase of the DGIP–JPO PPH program was first launched in 2013 as an effort to test the use of JPO examination results to expedite the process in Indonesia. As utilization increased and positive responses were received from Applicants, the cooperation was extended multiple times. Under the latest agreement, the DGIP–JPO PPH program has been renewed once again and will continue until 2026. These periodic extensions indicate that the PPH is considered successful by both Offices—reducing examination burdens on one side while providing a stable acceleration route for Applicants on the other.   According to DGIP’s official guidelines, the DGIP–JPO PPH scheme is divided into two categories:   1. PPH Based on JPO National Work Products Under this scheme, a PPH request is filed for a patent application that has already entered DGIP, by referring to its corresponding application at the JPO. The main requirements for filing a PPH request under this scheme include: The application at DGIP and the corresponding application at the JPO that forms the basis of the PPH must share the same earliest date (whether a priority date or filing date), either through the Paris Route or the PCT Route. The earliest application in the patent family must have been filed at either DGIP or the JPO as a national office. At least one JPO application must have claims that have been determined to be patentable/allowable, as reflected in a Decision to Grant, Notification of Reasons for Refusal, Decision of Refusal, or Appeal Decision. All claims submitted for examination under the PPH at DGIP must “sufficiently correspond” to the claims considered patentable/allowable at the JPO—that is, the claim scope must be identical, similar, or narrower through the addition of limiting features supported by the specification. A PPH request can only be made if DGIP has not yet begun substantive examination of the application.   2. PCT-PPH Based on PCT International Work Products (WO/ISA, WO/IPEA, IPER) In this scheme, in addition to national work products, the guidelines also provide for PCT-PPH. Here, the basis for acceleration is no longer the JPO’s national office actions but the JPO’s international work products in its capacity as: WO/ISA – Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority WO/IPEA – Written Opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority IPER – International Preliminary Examination Report   The main requirements include: The latest International Work Product must indicate that at least one claim is patentable/allowable with respect to novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. The DGIP application and the corresponding PCT international application must share the same earliest date (whether through national phase entry, priority basis, or as a derivative/divisional). All claims filed at DGIP must “sufficiently correspond” to the claims considered patentable/allowable in the relevant International Work Product.   PPH MOTTAINAI Beyond the two main pathways above, the JPO has also introduced the concept of PPH MOTTAINAI. In simple terms, “mottainai” in Japanese conveys a sense of regret when something…

MATCHAMAN’s Trademark Strategy: A Blueprint for Indonesian Brands Going Global through the Madrid Protocol - AFFA IPR

MATCHAMAN’s Trademark Strategy: A Blueprint for Indonesian Brands Going Global through the Madrid Protocol

Intellectual Property, Trademark

In an increasingly competitive global market, Trademark protection is no longer optional—it is a fundamental foundation for business growth. One Indonesian brand leading by example is MATCHAMAN, a matcha-based beverage brand owned by PT. Puyo Grup Indonesia, widely recognized for its silky pudding outlets across the country.   Today, MATCHAMAN has become a rising name among premium matcha enthusiasts, gaining attention through its two flagship locations in Melawai Blok M and Pacific Place SCBD, South Jakarta.   A Contemporary Matcha Experience   Matcha is not new in Jakarta. Yet, MATCHAMAN brought fresh excitement to the scene when it launched in Blok M. Drawing inspiration from contemporary matcha cafés in Bangkok, MATCHAMAN emphasizes a casual, on-the-go drinking experience supported by a striking interior—metallic grays, vibrant emerald tones, and warm wood elements that pay homage to Japanese design.   At its heart lies an open bar under a high ceiling, softly lit—yellow during the day, green after sunset—where matcharistas prepare every cup using traditional techniques learned from Tokyo and Kyoto tea houses: Hot water at exactly 80°C, whisked with bamboo tools in handmade chawan, producing silky, foamy perfection!   Building a Strong Brand Foundation   MATCHAMAN has taken exemplary steps to protect its business identity. In December 2024, the brand filed its Trademark in Indonesia under: Class 30: matcha-based beverages, matcha latte, green tea, powdered green tea, etc. Class 43: beverage service, hot and cold drink bars, boba service, and similar activities.   MATCHAMAN successfully obtained registration in June 2025, with protection valid until December 2034.   This careful and timely registration ensures that MATCHAMAN retains exclusive rights over its brand in Indonesia—preventing misuse, counterfeiting, and unfair competition.   Going Global with the Madrid Protocol   With a strong foundation at home, MATCHAMAN wasted no time in taking the next step. In September 2025, the brand filed an international application under the Madrid Protocol through WIPO, designating: Australia Japan Malaysia Singapore   AFFA supported the Trademark filing under the Madrid Protocol, streamlining the process for securing overseas protection.   Why the Madrid Protocol Matters?   The Madrid Protocol allows brand owners to: File once to cover multiple countries. Manage and renew registrations centrally. Save time and cost compared to filing country-by-country. Expand quickly with legal security.   This strategy exemplifies global best practice: Register in the home country first. Use the Madrid Protocol to efficiently reach new markets.   By securing its identity abroad, MATCHAMAN ensures its brand remains exclusive and protected wherever it intends to grow.   Fast Execution: MATCHAMAN Lands in Japan   Soon after filing its international Trademark application, MATCHAMAN moved swiftly to tap into overseas markets—starting at the very heart of matcha culture: Japan!   MATCHAMAN made its Japan debut through a collaboration with a local F&B player, attracting enthusiastic public response. The collaboration demonstrated strong market interest and validated MATCHAMAN’s positioning as a modern matcha brand with global appeal.   This early success signals promising opportunities for future development abroad—made possible by proactive Trademark protection.   As MATCHAMAN stands as a model for Indonesian businesses aiming to expand globally, its strategy demonstrates key lessons: Trademark first — expansion second. Protect at home, then secure key foreign markets. Use efficient international systems like the Madrid Protocol. Move fast once legal protection is in place.   By protecting its brand early, MATCHAMAN ensures that its creativity, identity, and business potential stay exclusively its own—allowing it to grow confidently and competitively worldwide.   With strong IP protection, businesses like MATCHAMAN can step boldly into the global arena—safe, confident, and ready to thrive.   Should you need more information on registering a Trademark in Indonesia and globally, contact us through the channels below and get a FREE 15-minute consultation!   ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 ? WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889

Can a “Hashtag” Be Registered as a Trademark in Indonesia? - AFFA IPR

Can a “Hashtag” Be Registered as a Trademark in Indonesia?

Intellectual Property, Trademark

In the digital era, hashtags (#) that precede certain slogans or statements have become an important tool in marketing strategies. They make it easier for the public to find specific campaigns on social media, strengthen promotional identity, and even build user communities.   Some examples of commonly encountered hashtags include: #FYP #photooftheday #KeepCookingMama #FreakyFriday #HowLowCanYouGo   However, when a hashtag grows more popular and becomes closely associated with the identity of a product or service—or there’s even an intention to monopolize it—the question arises: “Can a hashtag be registered as a Trademark?”   In Principle, Yes — But It’s Not Automatically Acceptable   By definition of the Indonesian Trademark Law, a Mark means any sign capable of being represented graphically in the form of drawings, logos, names, words, letters, numerals, color arrangements, in 2 (two) and/or 3 (three) dimensional shape, sounds, holograms, or a combination of 2 (two) or more of those elements to distinguish goods and/or services produced by a person or legal entity in trading goods and/or services. Nevertheless, in Trademark examination practice, the hashtag symbol (#) alone is not considered a distinctive element. In other words, when filing #HowLowCanYouGo, the examiner does not assess the “#” but evaluates the word elements “How Low Can You Go.”   Accordingly, a hashtag can be registered as a Trademark if the phrase within it meets the distinctiveness test as per Article 20 of the Indonesian Trademark Law, namely: Not generic Has distinctiveness Not descriptive Not merely a promotional call-to-action Not misleading Not to violate public order, regulations, or morality   If the phrase is too generic, the application risks being refused.   Hashtag + Removing Spaces Doesn’t Automatically Make It a New, Unique Word   There’s an assumption that a slogan will be easier to register if it’s written without spaces and prefixed with a hashtag, for example: “Indonesian Pride” → #IndonesianPride “Support Local Coffee” → #SupportLocalCoffee   However, this does not automatically turn it into a new, unique word. Examiners will still assess whether the phrase has distinctiveness. If the original meaning remains easily understood—e.g., as a promotional expression—its strength as a Trademark is still considered weak.   In short, adding “#” and removing spaces does not automatically increase the chances of registration!   Comparative Registration Chances   Form Example Chance to be  Registered Reason Descriptive Slogan INDONESIAN PRIDE Low Generic phrase/ Promotion. Without Spaces INDONESIANPRIDE Low-Medium Meaning remains clear. With Hashtag #INDONESIANPRIDE Low-Medium “#” adds no distinctiveness. Arbitrary/Fanciful Word XYRANGER High Non-descriptive & unique. Hashtag + Arbitrary #XYRANGER High Strength lies in the core word.   The core assessment remains the same: it’s not about the format, but how distinctive the phrase is.   How to Give a Hashtag a Better Chance of Being Registered in Indonesia?   If you want to protect a hashtag as a Trademark, consider: Using an arbitrary or unique word. Avoiding purely promotional phrases. Adding a distinctive brand element.   For example: #KROriginal #24hourbyMaduraShop #XyRangerEveryday   If the core wording has strong distinctiveness, the chances of successful registration are higher—even without the hashtag.   Therefore, if you use hashtags in marketing campaigns and want to protect them as a Trademark, ensure the wording is distinctive enough to differentiate your products or services from others.   Should you need more information on registering hashtags as Trademarks, contact us through the channels below and get a FREE 15-minute consultation!   ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 ? WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889

Timor Leste Joins ASEAN: What It Means for Your Trademark Protection Strategy - AFFA IPR

Timor Leste Joins ASEAN: What It Means for Your Trademark Protection Strategy

Intellectual Property, Trademark

At the 47th ASEAN Summit held on 26–28 October in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Timor Leste was ratified as the 11th member of ASEAN. Under the “Trade in Goods” framework, you may consider Timor Leste as your next export destination, since ASEAN membership brings more competitive tariffs, efficiency, and easier distribution within the region.   But how can you secure Trademark protection in Timor Leste? Remember: distributing and trading without Trademark protection is a high-risk move!   Trademark Regulations in Timor Leste At present, there is no dedicated government authority handling Trademark registration in Timor Leste. Therefore, Trademark protection is obtained by publishing Cautionary Notices in local newspapers to inform the public of your claim of ownership. The publication must include a statement of ownership and a warning to others not to use the Trademark without permission.   Trademarks That Can Be Recorded Because there is no formal Trademark registration system yet, there are no specific criteria for what can or cannot be registered. However, Trademarks published through Cautionary Notices should be: Unique and not imitative of other well-known Trademarks. Not in violation of local social or cultural norms. Conversely, Trademarks we do not recommend recording include: Purely descriptive or generic marks without distinctive elements. Marks that reference national or international symbols without authorization. Marks that are similar to well-known Trademarks abroad.   Required Conditions and Documents To publish Cautionary Notices in Timor Leste, you will need: Cautionary Notice Text: An official statement including the Trademark owner’s name and address, and a detailed description of the Trademark. Trademark Specimen: A clear representation of the Trademark to be published.   Procedure/Stages for Recording a Trademark via Cautionary Notices The publication procedure includes: Document Preparation: Drafting the Cautionary Notice text and preparing the Trademark specimen. Translation: Translating documents into the official language(s), if required. Publication: Submitting the Cautionary Notice to a local newspaper for publication. The duration of each stage may vary depending on process efficiency and newspaper schedules—ranging from several weeks to a few months. Additionally, because there is no formal registration system, no official certificate is issued.   What to Do After Your Trademark Is Published After publication of the Cautionary Notice, you as the Trademark owner are advised to actively use the Trademark in business to avoid the risk of claims by others. You—and your Trademark Consultant with representation in Timor Leste—should also actively monitor its use. If an unauthorized party uses the Trademark, you may take legal action based on the published notice.   Term of Protection in Timor Leste There is no specific protection period in Timor Leste due to the absence of a formal system. However, you are advised to renew the Cautionary Notice every two years to reinforce protection.   Since the system is not based on formal registration, there is no clear grace period if you are late with renewal. Nevertheless, the longer a Trademark goes without republication, the higher the risk that others may use it.   Ready to record your Trademark in Timor Leste? For more information, contact us through the channels below and get a FREE 15-minute consultation!   ? E-Mail : [email protected] ? Book a Call : +62 21 83793812 ? WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889

When Science Meets Beauty: The Patent Strategies Behind Cosmetic Innovation in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

When Science Meets Beauty: The Patent Strategies Behind Cosmetic Innovation in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual Property

In an era when the definition of “beauty” is no longer a matter of taste but the result of scientific research and business strategy, Patents act like invisible fences protecting the technological gardens behind every cosmetic product. During the protection period, the inventor enjoys a time-limited monopoly, while the public still gains access to the underlying technology through mandatory disclosure. This exchange — between exclusive rights and knowledge transparency — makes Patents a valuable currency that can be licensed, negotiated, or leveraged for funding. Today, competition in the cosmetics industry extends not only to retail shelves but also to the lines of Patent claims.   Aesthetics Built by Science Discussing cosmetics means examining aesthetics shaped by science. As the market grows, so does formulation complexity. In the past, innovation stopped at creams, gels, and lotions. Now, the landscape extends to clear nanoemulsions, multi-lamellar emulsions mimicking the stratum corneum, and anhydrous solids designed for extremely dry skin. The trend of “skincare from within” has even blurred the line between cosmetics and pharmaceuticals through oral formulations. Yet, across all these evolutions, Patents serve as the locking mechanism of value — covering ingredients, carriers, system designs, and process parameters that make a product cosmetically elegant without losing efficacy.   New Value from Familiar Ingredients Names like hyaluronic acid, niacinamide, and ceramide are now household terms among consumers. As Patent Originators, the core molecular Patents behind these ingredients have long expired. However, in the hands of formulators, their role continues through formulation innovation. The new wave of Patents no longer revolves around what the ingredient is, but how it works — from delivery systems that improve penetration and comfort, to crystalline structures enhancing stability, and formulations that maintain transparency and a lightweight feel. The commercial value has shifted — and it is the “how” that is now fenced by claims.   Four Key Patent Claim Pathways in Cosmetics For formulation teams, four categories of claims hold the most value: Composition – e.g., the ceramide:cholesterol:free-fatty-acid ratio and the Hydrophilic–Lipophilic Balance (HLB) system. Process – such as the shear profile, number of passes in high-pressure homogenization, or the cooling curve. Use/Application – for instance, reducing Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL), the amount of water naturally evaporating from the skin. Crystalline Architecture – which prevents precipitation and preserves sensory elegance, the tactile and aesthetic pleasure perceived by the senses. As long as these variables are measurable and reproducible, they can form legitimate new claims.   From Laboratory to Store Shelf Behind every claim like low-oxidation foundation, non-sticky moisturizer, or 12+ hour moisture-lock serum, there are scientists meticulously determining the right range of composition and process: Too little — ineffective. Too much — irritating; Incorrect pH — destabilizes the system; Wrong mixing order — triggers precipitation. Finding that optimal balance is the essence of invention. If it meets the criteria of novelty, inventiveness, and industrial applicability, it becomes a patentable invention. Often, what’s patented isn’t the substance itself, but the precise orchestration — ratios, droplet sizes, temperature, homogenization pressure, and crystallization kinetics.   Excipients: The Unsung Heroes In modern cosmetics, excipients — inactive ingredients that maintain stability and enhance performance — play a crucial role. Because the dosage of active ingredients is often limited by regulations, formulators rely on excipient architecture: Humectants to draw moisture, Emollients for smoothness, Surfactants for dispersion stability, Polymers to control viscosity and texture. Techniques like high-pressure homogenization, ultrasonication, and cooling control are now treated as scientific variables, not just production methods. When these protocols deliver measurable benefits — increased hydration, reduced TEWL, improved barrier function — the process itself transforms into an intellectual property asset.   The Ceramide Case: Between Stability and Sensation Take ceramide — a lipid that locks in moisture within the stratum corneum. Formulating it to be stable, pleasant, and effective is no small feat. Patent WO2023076537 (by L’Oréal) enhanced ceramide load without heaviness. Patent WO2024215106 stabilized specific crystalline forms to prevent precipitation. Patent WO2024167206 created transparent nanoemulsions with a light sensory feel. Patent WO2023048329 developed solid oil-dispersed formulations for extremely dry skin. The differentiation lies not in what is used, but in how it’s engineered. National strategies differ, too: China focuses on speed, volume, and diverse combinations — fitting its dynamic mass market. Japan emphasizes material precision, crystal form, and purity — for cleaner, longer-lasting formulas. Korea excels in sensorial design and lamellar architectures — gentle on sensitive skin and clinically tested. Three approaches, one goal: stable, effective, comfortable, and claimable innovation.   Indonesia’s Opportunity: Utility Models for Cosmetic Innovation Under Indonesia’s Patent Law, Utility Models require only novelty and functional improvement, without the complex inventive step demanded by regular Patents. This opens opportunities for incremental cosmetic innovations — adjustments in component ratios, crystal forms, or carrier/dispersant designs — to gain fast and affordable protection for local formulations. However, it’s a double-edged sword. Savvy companies can build Patent Thickets — a web of overlapping Patents to secure valuable combinations — while others risk losing protection over similar innovations. That’s why an Intellectual Property strategy is crucial: deciding when to file, when to publish defensively, and how to keep innovation space open.   From Lab Bench to Legal Strength In practice, Utility Models can extend protection through solid scientific data — such as evidence of reduced TEWL, improved hydration, or chemical stability. These data not only strengthen Patent claims but also narrow competitor movement while reinforcing brand positioning. At the same time, this mechanism encourages local downstream innovation, allowing domestically developed formulations to be protected and commercialized faster.   Regulatory and IP Synergy Remember: Product Registration Approval from the Indonesian National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) and Compliance Certification with Good Manufacturing Practice for Cosmetics (CPKB) ensure that a product is safe and high-quality, but they do not grant exclusive rights. Regulatory clearance doesn’t guarantee freedom from infringement. The best approach is to comply with regulations while reinforcing Intellectual Property protection. This dual strategy ensures a company is not only legally safe but also strategically secure — with…

When Private Tech Goes Public: The Opening Chapter of SEP Litigation in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

When Private Tech Goes Public: The Opening Chapter of SEP Litigation in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual Property

In recent years, the global conversation about Patents has shifted from who invented first to who controls the standard. Behind the arrival of 5G on our phones, Wi-Fi in every public space, and USB-C as a universal port, lies a term that increasingly dominates Intellectual Property discussions: Standard Essential Patents (SEP). This is no longer merely about exclusive rights, but about access to technology and the governance of the global digital industry. Indonesia may not yet be the main arena for SEP disputes, but several cases—such as Nokia’s Patent disputes in the Commercial Court—signal that this issue is no longer confined to Europe or the United States. When a company’s Patent has been adopted as part of a global technical standard, the question becomes more complex: how should its license be opened? Should there be a “public interest” limitation under FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms? Unlike disputes in the pharmaceutical or life sciences sectors that often revolve around novelty, indication, or public domain, SEP issues introduce new dimensions: standardization, access, and interoperability. A Patent does not only protect technology—it can determine who may enter the market, and under what conditions.   Indonesia’s First SEP-Related Case The first SEP-related case in Indonesia emerged in 2015 between PT Polarchem, PT Garuda Tasco International, PT Star Metal Ware Industry, and PT Golden Agin against the holder of Patent IDS0001281. Patent IDS0001281 was registered as a Utility Model, describing the technical specifications of a sprayer, filed on 31 May 2012. The Utility Model closely resembled an Indonesian National Standard (SNI) established in 2018, which governed the criteria and testing methods for electric backpack sprayers. The Patent Holder objected to the enactment of SNI 8485:2018, arguing that it infringed on the Patent and refused to license the technology—an action that clearly violated the FRAND principle for inventions adopted as national standards. Initially, the Patent Holder won before the Central Jakarta Commercial Court (Decision No. 75/Pdt.Sus-Paten/2015/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, 30 June 2016). However, upon judicial review, the Supreme Court (Decision No. 147 PK/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2018) determined that Patent IDS0001281 lacked technical novelty, ruling that the Utility Model was not new, and subject to cancellation.   The Nokia SEP Cases Another major development involved four cases between Nokia Technologies Oy and mobile phone assemblers or distributors in Indonesia. These cases demonstrated consistent SEP argumentation patterns. Nokia mapped its telecommunications Patent claims to specific 3GPP Technical Specifications adopted under Indonesia’s standardization framework. The first group involved 3G/UMTS Patents related to HSDPA 64QAM, covering efficient data packaging methods for faster transmission. Nokia referred to 3GPP TS 25.212, which defines UMTS multiplexing and channel coding, arguing that any 3G-compliant phone inherently implements the patented features. The second group concerned 4G Patents, referencing 3GPP TS 36.212 (v8.8.0) on multiplexing, channel coding, and mapping to physical channels in LTE. The claims covered methods for transmitting antenna configuration information using a bit mask—allowing synchronization between the user equipment (UE) and base stations (WTS), thereby improving data transmission. Since this specification forms part of global LTE standards (including in Indonesia), Nokia argued that any LTE device compliant with TS 36.212 necessarily performs the patented steps and thus requires a valid FRAND license. All groups referred to the ETSI definition of “essential”, which states that an IPR is considered essential if, on a technical (not commercial) basis, and given the state of the art during standardization, it is impossible to make, sell, or operate compliant equipment without infringing that IPR. Patent Holders must therefore submit an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Information Statement and irrevocable Licensing Declaration, agreeing to license under FRAND terms—preserving exclusivity, but balancing it with fair and non-discriminatory access.   Contractual and Institutional Dimensions The contractual dimension was reinforced through Nokia’s global and local licensing history, used to demonstrate its FRAND commitment and non-discriminatory practices. Disputes typically arose when existing licenses expired and renewal negotiations failed, leaving subsequent product distributions outside the licensing scope. At this stage, familiar SEP debates emerged: Was the FRAND offer economically fair and reasonable? Was there any discrimination? Who acted in good faith—the willing or unwilling licensee? And what remedies were proportionate—monetary compensation or injunctions? Expert testimony regarding the necessity of TS 36.212 for LTE devices supported the “implementation of standard = implementation of claim” reasoning typical in cross-border SEP disputes. Institutionally, 3GPP itself is a collaborative project among global standards organizations (ETSI in Europe, ATIS in the U.S., ARIB/TTC in Japan, TTA in Korea, CCSA in China, and others). Thus, 3G/4G/5G standards are collective products, not proprietary to a single developer. ETSI provides IPR policies and declaration procedures, not a license pool. Consequently, the prevailing commercialization model is bilateral FRAND licensing, though optional license pools exist in certain sectors. All four cases referred explicitly to the ETSI IPR Policy and 3GPP Working Procedures (particularly Article 55 on early IPR disclosure), emphasizing that: Technical contributions may contain essential IPR; Such IPR must be disclosed as early as possible; and Licenses must be available on FRAND terms to any willing implementer to ensure public interoperability.   Lessons and Legal Implications Together, these four cases represent Indonesia’s first publicly visible chapter in SEP litigation. The plaintiffs explicitly linked Patent claims to 3GPP Technical Specifications, affirmed ETSI declarations and FRAND commitments, and connected them to domestic device certifications as inferential proof of implementation. For industry players, the lesson is clear: When private technology “graduates” into a public standard, Patent rights remain—but they are burdened with access obligations under FRAND. Conversely, implementers gain access to standards but must negotiate in good faith for valid licenses. In the 5G/IoT horizon, similar disputes will likely intersect with competition law and cross-jurisdictional coordination (including anti-suit injunction issues). Thus, compliance playbooks—covering standard-to-claim mapping, negotiation documentation, and economic reasonableness assessments—should be prepared from the outset.   Reassessing Essentiality In evaluating such cases, it is critical to resist the assumption of “automatic essentiality.” As noted by Yi Yu et al. (2024), an effective defense begins by testing whether the disputed Patent is truly essential to the relevant standard or merely directed…