By Carola Monintja
When the Indonesian Ministry of Law introduced Regulation No. 5 of 2026, effective 23 February 2026, it was more than a routine regulatory update. For those familiar with trademark practice in Indonesia, the changes reflect a deliberate effort to streamline the system and bring greater operational clarity to processes that had, over time, become reliant on informal practice.
The previous framework under Regulation No. 67 of 2016, and its earlier iterations, left considerable room for interpretation. In practice, this led to the development of various workarounds in dealing with the Registry. The new regulation suggests a conscious move by the Ministry to align the formal rules with how the system actually functions on the ground, while also tightening certain aspects where necessary.
Key Takeaways
- From Informal Practice to Clear Rules -> Indonesia has codified real-world trademark practices into law, eliminating ambiguity and making the system more predictable and structured.
- Faster System, Driven by Stricter Discipline -> Trademark registration is now significantly faster—but only for those who get it right at filing, with tighter documentation and higher scrutiny upfront.
- Closing Gaps, Strengthening Certainty -> Key blind spots (assignments, renewals, force majeure, e-certificates) are now addressed, creating a more complete, reliable, and business-friendly trademark framework.
Claim Your Trademark. Protect Your Brand in Indonesia.
Before diving into the table of changes, it helps to look at this in a few key perspectives.
- Documentation is no longer taken lightly
Indonesia is clearly moving toward stricter verification of applicants. In the past, especially for foreign applicants, the documentation threshold was relatively light. That is no longer the case. The new requirements i.e. passports, company establishment documents, OSS licensing, even ministry recommendations for local entities signal a shift toward greater accountability. It may feel heavier at filing stage, but from a registry perspective, it reduces ambiguity later.
- Registry is trying to move faster but in a more controlled way
The headline change is, of course, the shortened examination timeline. On paper, dropping from 150 days to as little as 30 days (where there is no opposition) is significant. But the more interesting point is how they have done it: By tightening front-end requirements and streamlining backend processes like assignments and renewals. In other words, speed is being achieved by discipline.
- Gaps in the old system are now being addressed
There were areas the previous regulation simply did not deal with change of name/address, force majeure situations, even the form of registration certificates. These are not critical topics, but in practice, they are exactly where delays and disputes tend to arise. The new regulation closes many of these gaps.
- The regulation reflects a broader policy direction
The introduction of collective marks for SMEs and the formal recognition of force majeure are not just procedural tweaks. They reflect a broader intent: Supporting local businesses while giving applicants a bit more legal certainty in exceptional situations.
With that context in mind, the table below sets out the key differences between the old and new regulations in a more structured way:
|
No |
Feature |
Old Regulation (Regulation of the Minister of Law No. 67 of 2016) |
New Regulation (Regulation of the Minister of Law No. 5 of 2026) |
Notes |
|
1 |
Identity of the Applicant |
|||
|
Not required |
Scanned copy of passport |
||
|
Not required |
Scanned copy of the passport of the director |
||
|
Establishment deed of the company (Translated into Indonesian) |
||||
|
Not required (in such lengthy details) |
Scanned copy of ID card of the director |
||
|
Establishment deed of the company |
||||
|
Certificate of Registration of Personal Company Establishment |
||||
|
Risk-Based Business Licensing (OSS) documents. |
||||
|
Approval from the village Sub District Cooperation. |
||||
|
A recommendation letter from the relevant Ministry, signed in the same year as the application. |
||||
|
2 |
Examination process |
150 days |
30 days (no opposition) |
As a result of these efficiencies, the total processing time from filing to registration has been reduced to six months for uncontested applications.. |
|
90 days (received an opposition) |
||||
|
3 |
Recordation of change of name and/or address |
Not governed. |
Confirmation that the substantive examination will be conducted once the recordation process has been finalized |
|
|
4 |
Recordation of assignment of right |
6 months |
Recorded within 1 day, or as soon as the formality documents are fulfilled |
|
|
5 |
Priority Document |
Not required |
Priority right must be supported with the receipt of the application for registration of the initial mark that generates the Priority right |
|
|
The priority document must be translated into the Indonesian language by a sworn translator. |
||||
|
6 |
Issuance of Registration Certificate |
Not governed |
Confirmation on the issuance of E-certificate only. |
|
|
15 days |
1 day |
||
|
7 |
Renewal of Trademark Registration |
Recordation process: 2 months |
Recordation process: 4 days |
In practice, renewal e-certificates are issued within 2 to 3 working days. |
|
Notification: 15 days |
Notification: 3 days |
|||
|
8 |
Collective mark |
Not governed |
The Government is authorized to file collective mark applications for the benefit of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). |
|
|
9 |
Force Majeure |
Not governed |
Providing legal certainty for applicants who are unable to meet administrative deadlines due to natural disasters or national security issues, ensuring their rights are not automatically forfeited |
|
Practical Takeaways
Taken together, these changes point to a system that is becoming more predictable, but also more exacting.
Applicants can expect faster outcomes, particularly for straightforward and uncontested applications. Processes such as renewals and recordals, which previously required significant time, are now largely administrative in nature where documentation is in order.
At the same time, the responsibility at the filing stage has increased. Incomplete documentation, inconsistencies in applicant details, or a lack of precision in filings are more likely to result in delays or complications during prosecution.
For brand owners, this is ultimately a positive development. Indonesia is moving toward a more mature trademark system that is structured, time bound, and increasingly digital, with electronic certificates now standard practice.
As with any regulatory change, the key question will be the consistency of implementation. Nonetheless, based on the framework and early indications, this represents a meaningful step forward.
If you are reviewing your filing or renewal strategy for Indonesia, or would like to better understand how these changes may affect your portfolio, it would be timely to take a closer look at the new requirements.
Please feel free to reach out to our team at KASS International. With extensive experience in Indonesian trademark practice, we would be pleased to support you in navigating the evolving framework and ensuring your brand is effectively protected.