The Indonesian Trademark Office has now clarified the necessary supporting documents required to file new trademark applications, following changes resulting from the issuance of a new Ministerial Regulation in February 2026. The recent clarification is a helpful and welcome resolution that should appease concerns raised by applicants and should also help the Trademark Office’s overall goal of increasing efficiency and speed within the application process.
On 23 February 2026, the Ministry of Law announced new Minister of Law Regulation No. 5 of 2026 (“MOL 5/2026”), which replaced the nearly decade-old Ministerial Regulation No. 67 of 2016 (“MOLHR 67/2016”), as amended by MOLHR No. 12 of 2021. MOL 5/2026 contains several changes as well as new provisions that are intended to better align with the current practice of trademark prosecution in Indonesia. More specifically and among others, it establishes new additional filing requirements for trademark applications; it introduces new provisions relating to recordals and collective trademarks, as well as force majeure provisions for deadline extension; and it codifies into law a number of provisions that were already prevalent in practice but lacked legal support, such as the requirement for priority documents to be sworn translated into the Indonesian language.
Most immediately and controversially, MOL 5/2026 introduced more cumbersome document requirements for new trademark applications, requiring the submission of Articles of Incorporation for corporate applicants and so-called ‘identity documents’ (e.g., passport, national ID card, etc.) for individual applications as well as signatories of Power of Attorney and Statement of Entitlement (POA/SOE) forms.
The new identity document requirement raised privacy and data protection concerns among applicants, while the failure to include such documents triggered the issuance of formality Office Actions from the Trademark Office, delaying progression of the application in question and thereby running counter to the DGIP’s stated goal of reducing application pendency times.
Now, the Trademark Office has clarified in an April 2026 notice published on their website the required documents for filing new applications, which are detailed below. Additionally, this Client Alert will outline and discuss the major changes introduced under new regulation MOL 5/2026 and will discuss their potential implications as well on day-to-day practice.
PROVISIONS RELATING TO APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROSECUTION
New Document Requirements for Trademark Applications (Art. 2(4))
Following the recent clarification by the Trademark Office, the submission of so-called ‘identity documents’ for non-Indonesian applicants is no longer required. As a result of this clarification, the only new requirement stemming from MOL 5/2026 related to new trademark applications applies to corporate applicants, who are now required to submit their Deed of Establishment/Articles of Incorporation/Business Registration Certificate and the latest amendment thereof (if any), as well as its sworn Indonesian translation.
Simply signed POA/SOE forms are still required for all applicants as part of the application filing process and must be submitted at the time of filing the application.
Mandatory Sworn Translation of Priority Documents (Arts. 2(4)(f), 11)
MOL 5/2026 also states that priority documents must be sworn translated into the Indonesian language. The previous regulation did not specify whether translation must be sworn or not.
In practice, however, sworn translations have long been required by the DGIP in priority situations. This provision therefore merely provides a stronger legal basis to reflect existing practice.
New Provision on Collective Trademarks (Arts. 70-72)
MOL 5/2026 provides further clarification on the types of applicants that may apply for collective trademarks, which are now specified as groups, associations, cooperatives, or other collective organizations. This change offers a clearer description of the legal entities that may act as applicants for collective trademarks, which was not expressly specified under previous regulations.
In addition, the new provision revises wording regarding the non-licensable nature of collective trademarks. MOL 5/2026 indicates that, rather than obtaining a license, a party intending to use a collective trademark may become a member of the relevant collective organization. This wording appears to provide a more practical path for how collective trademarks may be used in practice compared to the previous regulation.
Overall, these changes may be seen as reflecting and supporting the practical use and commercialization of collective trademarks.
Modified Definition of “Similarity in its Essential Part” (Art. 35(1))
With regards to trademark examination, MOL 5/2026 no longer bases the assessment of ‘similarity in its essential part’ on factors such as form, layout, writing, phonetics, or combinations of elements. Instead, the new regulation refers solely to similarity in the dominant element of the trademarks at issue.
Previously, MOLHR 67/2016 included a description similar to the explanatory note of Article 21(1) of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications, which also included those assessment factors. Thus, while this change does not alter the primary concept of similarity in its essential part, the revised wording may place more emphasis on the assessment of the dominant element of a trademark, even where some elements of the trademarks at issue are dissimilar.
Changes to Sound Trademark Label Requirement (Art. 2(6))
Applicants may now choose either notation or a sonogram to represent the label of a sound trademark. This differs from the previous regulation, MOLHR 67/2016, under which a sonogram was only used where the sound trademark could not be represented by notation. Furthermore, MOL 5/2026 also reclassifies sound recording as a mandatory documentary requirement, rather than being treated as the sound trademark label itself. These changes may be intended to reinforce the concept of a trademark label as a representation that can be visually perceived.
While notation should allow for easier interpretation of musical sounds, a sonogram provides a more precise representation of sound recordings through graphics, which may be particularly useful for non-musical sound trademark. The new regulation therefore gives applicants greater flexibility to select the representation method that best supports their sound trademark protection strategy.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO RECORDALS
Impact on Substantive Examination of Pre-Registration Recordals (Arts. 21, 30)
MOL 5/2026 introduces a provision stating that filing a request for recordal of an assignment or a name/address change for a pending trademark application will result in suspension of substantive examination until the recordal request has been approved or rejected.
Applicants planning to file such recordals during the application process should take this into consideration, as it may affect the overall timeline for trademark registration.
Shorter Deadline for Providing Required Documents for Trademark Assignment (Arts. 28(3), 68(3))
The new regulation introduces a shorter deadline for completing the required documents for the recordal of a trademark assignment. This revision effectively reduces the period provided under the previous regulation from three to two months.
Applicants seeking to record a trademark assignment should monitor any notifications requesting the submission of required documents more closely in light of this tighter deadline.
Grounds to Apply for Recordal of Name and/or Address Change (Arts. 14, 56)
The new regulation clarifies that a trademark applicant/owner may apply to record a change to its name and/or address based on two grounds, namely: (i) a typographical error in the applicant’s/owner’s name and/or address; and/or (ii) a change to the applicant’s/owner’s name and/or address as reflected in the relevant identification document.
MOLHR 67/2016 did not previously provide this stipulation. However, in practice, these grounds had already been recognized and implemented by the DGIP. Thus, the introduction of this provision merely establishes a written legal basis for such situations.
Faster Completion of Requests for Assignment and Name/Address Change Recordals (Arts. 20, 29, 62(3), 69(3))
Previously, once a recordal request was deemed complete, the Minister was given two months to record a change of name/address and six months to record an assignment, after which the applicant would be notified that the recordal had been completed within 15 working days.
Under MOL 5/2026, the specific time periods have been removed. This change appears to reflect the transition to a more automated recordation process under the DGIP’s online filing system. After the required documents have been deemed complete, the notification confirming a successful recordal is expected to be issued within at least 30 working days for registered trademarks and immediately for pending trademarks.
OTHER IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Additional Time to Complete Required Documents for Trademark Renewal (Art. 53(2))
MOL 5/2026 introduces a more forgiving renewal process, allowing trademark owners to file a renewal application before the expiry date and subsequently complete the required documents within six months after the trademark’s expiry date, potentially avoiding the additional costs associated with the grace period.
Previously, under MOLHR 67/2016, renewal applications were subject to a strict completeness requirement. As a result, any missing required documents could lead to the renewal application being rejected without an opportunity for the applicant to supplement the submission.
Adjustment to Well-Known Mark Provision (Art. 36)
MOL 5/2026 revises the formulation of the criteria for recognizing a well-known mark by positioning “public knowledge in the relevant business sector” as only one of several factors to be considered, rather than as the primary element that must be established, which was the case under the previous framework established by MOLHR 67/2016.
The revised provision under the new regulation introduces a more balanced approach in weighing the various criteria for determining whether a trademark qualifies as well-known.
Force Majeure Deadline Extension for Certain Matters (Arts. 73-74)
If an applicant fails to meet a statutory deadline due to force majeure circumstances (e.g., war, revolution, riots, strikes, natural disasters, or other similar emergencies), MOL 5/2026 allows a deadline extension, provided that the applicant submits sufficient evidence of the force majeure event and demonstrates how it prevented compliance with the deadline. This application for deadline extension is only allowed for certain matters, namely:
- responding to an initial rejection; or
- completing the required documents for a trademark application, priority claim, renewal, assignment, or name/address change.
The regulation does not specify the length of the extension period. Instead, the extension will be determined at the Minister’s discretion and notified to the applicant once a decision on the extension request has been made. However, the new MOL 5/2026 does not stipulate a timeframe for the Minister to issue such decision.
Notification of Opposed Trademark’s Final Status (Art. 41(9))
Under MOL 5/2026, the DGIP will now inform the opponent of an opposed trademark its final status (i.e., rejected or approved for registration).
Previously, the opponent was only entitled to receive the opposition decision and was not treated as a party to future proceedings. This often created an information gap regarding the final outcome of an opposed application. For example, even if an opposition was accepted and the DGIP issued an initial rejection based on that opposition, the trademark could still proceed to registration if the applicant successfully overcame the rejection. On the other hand, even if the opposition was rejected, the trademark could still be rejected based on other grounds.
Nevertheless, MOL 5/2026 does not clarify whether this notification also covers situations where a final rejected opposed trademark is later registered following a successful appeal before the Trademark Appeal Commission or the Commercial Court. As such, the opponent may still need to monitor the subsequent status of the opposed trademark following a final rejection from the DGIP.
Faster Issuance of Certified Copies of Trademark Registrations (Art. 46(8))
Under MOL 5/2026, a certified copy of a registered trademark will be issued more quickly, within at least one working day after the request has been accepted. Under the previous regulation, the same process could take up to 15 working days.
*****
Overall, the new regulation promises many changes to day-to-day trademark prosecution and administration in Indonesia. However, it remains to be seen how several of these provisions will be implemented in practice.
Should you have any questions regarding the new regulation MOL 5/2026 or Indonesian trademark prosecution in general, please do not hesitate to contact our Trademark Team at januar@jahja.com.
Contributed by Andrew Diamond and Richard Jatimulya Alam Wibowo for JJP Knowledge Center on 28 May 2026.
