You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

March 2, 2020

Indonesian Language Requirements May Thwart Trademark Squatters

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On September 30, 2019, the Indonesian president, through an initiative of the Ministry of Education and Culture, issued Presidential Regulation No. 63 of 2019 regarding the Use of the Indonesian Language (PR 63). This regulation is the implementing rule of Law No. 24 of 2009 regarding National Flag, Language, Emblem, and National Anthem.     

This new regulation stipulates that the Indonesian language (Bahasa) is now obligatory as the official medium of instruction in all educational institutions in the country, from kindergartens to universities. It also broadens the range of use of Bahasa for various activities, including official documents, the naming of buildings, and speeches by state officials in both international and national forums. In particular, article 35 of PR 63 explicitly requires the use of Bahasa for trademarks owned by Indonesian citizens or entities (except for licensed foreign trademarks). Under this law, an Indonesian citizen would not be able to register a trademark in a foreign language.   

Several decisions issued by the Supreme Court over the years have expressed disallowance of the registration of any mark using foreign wordings by a local applicant. The issuance of PR 63, therefore, is a useful additional argument against trademark squatters.    

Trademark squatters—local parties that unrightfully register and possess well-known foreign marks—are not uncommon in Indonesia. The trademark system in Indonesia is first-to-file, meaning that protection of a mark is given to the applicant who files that mark first (and has their application for registration subsequently granted). Added with the broader discretion of examiners in conducting substantive examination of the mark, this system provides an opportunity for trademark squatters.

Trademark Law No. 20 of 2016, which is the current legislation governing trademarks, stipulates that all marks passing formality examination will proceed directly to publication for opposition purposes. Trademark owners are encouraged to proactively monitor the published marks and to file oppositions when necessary. Once an opposition is filed, it will be used as a consideration by the examiner in conducting a substantive examination. Otherwise, the examination result will depend solely on the examiner’s discretion.    

Other than arguing that a published application is confusingly similar or filed in bad faith, an opposition may be filed on the basis of absolute grounds stipulated in article 20 of the Trademark Law, which holds that the application will be rejected if it contradicts state ideology, lacks distinctiveness, contains elements that  may mislead the public as to quality, and so on. In this regard, the concerned trademark owner can now add PR 63 to their argument—a squatted trademark must be rejected as it violates article 20 of the Trademark Law, namely contradicting the statutory regulation.   

Although PR 63 has been officially enacted, many parties have raised objections. One of the biggest criticisms is that PR 63 seems unsuitable for the progressive business era we are now in, and may be a significant obstacle to investment. Several business associations and governmental bodies—including the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) itself—have recently agreed that the Ministry of Education and Culture will need to draft a further regulation to accommodate these objections.   

In terms of trademark applications, the DGIP has indicated that it may issue an announcement that PR 63 will not affect the trademark registration process. In this case, PR 63 would be considered a regulation related to use of the mark only. Thus, the examiner would not take PR 63 into consideration.    

Whether the DGIP will issue the notice, and their timeline for doing so, are not yet known. Moreover, in light of the objections, it seems unlikely that the examiner will use PR 63 as the sole grounds for refusal against an infringing application. However, it is still likely to be a persuasive tool, so at this moment it is recommended that trademark owners affected by squatters or similar issues mention PR 63 in their opposing arguments against similar marks.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More