A lawyer’s perspective on Indonesia’s proposed Industrial Design Law
07 August 2026
The academic paper, the bill on industrial design and the matrix of proposals discussed during the Focus Group Discussion convened by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) in collaboration with the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia are working documents that form part of an ongoing legislative process.
The academic paper identifies three structural weaknesses in the Industrial Design Law, namely in the substantive aspect, the procedural and administrative aspect, and the enforcement aspect, as follows:
- Substantive aspect. Indonesia’s proposed Industrial Design Law, which would be renamed the Industrial Product Design Law under the bill, seeks to address several gaps in the current framework. Key reforms include renaming the law to better reflect its scope, clarifying the standard for novelty by requiring designs to be significantly different from prior disclosures, introducing an originality requirement to prevent bad-faith registrations and expanding protection to cover partial designs, component parts, sets of articles, graphical user interfaces and holograms. The proposed reforms also aim to modernize the law by providing a framework that can better accommodate emerging issues such as AI-assisted design, 3D printing, digital commerce and cross-border trade.
- Procedural and administrative aspects. The academic paper treats the question of substantive examination as the most fundamental weakness. The current Industrial Design Law requires substantive examination only where an objection is filed by another party during the publication period. As a consequence, an application for a design that does not in truth satisfy the novelty requirement may still proceed to registration simply because no party filed an objection. It should be emphasized that this is not a theoretical concern. A certificate issued without its novelty ever having been examined remains valid until cancelled through an action before the Commercial Court, so that the burden and cost of cleaning up the register shift from the State to business actors. In addition, Indonesia has not ratified either the Locarno Agreement or the 1999 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement, so the Industrial Design Law does not yet accommodate the international registration framework.
- Enforcement aspect. The criminal sanction under Article 54 of the Industrial Design Law, namely imprisonment of up to four years and/or a fine of up to Rp300,000,000 (US$16,800), is regarded as no longer commensurate with the economic loss caused by design infringement. In addition, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not adequately regulated in the Industrial Design Law.
“The proposed law introduces four major reforms,” said Nugraha Bratakusumah, managing partner at Marklaw Legal Counsel in Jakarta. “First, it establishes protection for unregistered designs, inspired by the European Union model, while allowing right holders to register within a grace period to strengthen proof of ownership. Second, it mandates substantive examination for all applications and aims to complete registration within 33 days through digitalization, streamlined procedures, and the use of artificial intelligence. Third, it revisits the proposed Industrial Design Appeal Commission, with the DGIP suggesting its removal to avoid additional bureaucracy since rejected applicants can already appeal directly to the Commercial Court. Finally, the bill replaces fixed monetary penalties with the Criminal Code’s category-based fine system, aligning sanctions with Indonesia’s broader legal framework.”
He said that the proposed reforms will affect stakeholders differently. “Individual designers, micro, small and medium enterprises, and creative businesses are expected to benefit from unregistered design protection and a 12-month grace period, giving them more flexibility before deciding to register a design. However, without registration, designers will need to maintain proper documentation to prove ownership in case of disputes. Registered rights holders will gain a longer maximum protection period of 15 years but will face more frequent renewal requirements.”
He added: “Employers and government agencies may also need to update employment contracts and internal policies to address designers’ rights to remuneration and commercial exploitation. Meanwhile, digital platforms will face greater responsibility for handling design infringement through stronger notice-and-takedown systems, although clearer government rules are needed to ensure consistent enforcement and provide appeal mechanisms. If the proposed Appeal Commission is removed, rejected applicants will continue to rely on the Commercial Court, potentially increasing costs and limiting access to justice for smaller businesses. Finally, allowing industrial design rights to serve as fiduciary security could improve access to financing for design-driven enterprises by enabling the use of intellectual property as collateral.”
- Excel V. Dyquiangco
