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…

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…

[Important Update] Japan Adopts Letter of Consent for Trademark Registration - AFFA IPR

[Important Update] Japan Adopts Letter of Consent for Trademark Registration

Trademark

The revised Japan Trademark Law will come into effect on April 1, 2024, introducing the “Letter of Consent” to overcome conflicts with earlier Trademark registrations.   However, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently announced that evidence must be provided in addition to a consent letter obtained from the earlier registrant when applying Article 4(4) of the Japan Trademark Law. This evidence must convince the JPO examiner that there is no likelihood of confusion between earlier and junior marks, not only at present but also in the future.   Article 4(4) of the Japan Trademark Law, which is newly introduced in April, states:   Trademark applications will not be rejected under Article 4(1)(xi) as long as the applicant obtains consent from the owner of the cited mark and it is unlikely to cause confusion with the cited owner or its exclusive or non-exclusive licensee when used on goods or services designated under the application.   Trademark Examination Guidelines for Article 4(4) Provides:   The requirement of being ‘unlikely to cause confusion’ must be satisfied at the time of the JPO examiner’s decision and in the future. To satisfy the requirement, the following factors will be assessed: Similarity between marks Recognition of mark Uniqueness of mark Significance of mark (House mark or product brand) Possibility of business expansion Relatedness of goods and service Consumers Trade practices involving actual use of mark Where both marks are identical and used on same goods and service, the examiner will find “likely to cause confusion” in principle. Applicant must provide evidence to demonstrate the unlikelihood of confusion based on the actual use of both marks. For example: Different color, font or combination between literal element and figurative element of respective mark Different position to place the mark or to accompany with other distinctive mark Difference in speific purpose or price of respective goods Different sales channel Different seasons to use the mark Different territory to use the mark Mutual covenants to take necessary actions if confusion is likely to occur between the marks An agreement between the parties to keep the present use or configuration of both marks in the future will be required to strengthen the unlikelihood of confusion in the future.   It is important to note that “Letter of Consent” is not available to Trademark applications filed with the JPO before April 1, 2024, even if they are pending examination.   Similarly, international registrations registered at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or subsequently designated to Japan before April 1, 2024, can’t use the consent. Should you need further information regarding Trademark registration in Japan or other countries, please email us at [email protected].