Using regional IP offices

The Directorate-General of Intellectual Property has regional offices that can be used for the purposes of filing applications.

Regional offices were established under the Decree of Ministry of Law and Human Rights Republic of Indonesia No.M.11-PR.07.06 of 2003 on The Appointment of Regional Offices of Law and Human Rights Department of the Republic of Indonesia for Receiving Intellectual Property Rights Applications, and the Decree of Ministry of Law and Human Rights Republic of Indonesia No.H01.PR.07.06 of 2004 on Admission Guidelines for Registration of Intellectual Property Rights Through Regional Offices of the Law and Human Rights Department of the Republic of Indonesia. 

All applications for registration of intellectual property rights, which the exception of patent applications filed under the PCT system, can be filed at regional offices. The offices are located in:

1. Aceh
2. North Sumatera 
3. West Sumatera
4. Riau
5. Riau Islands
6. South Sumatera
7. Jambi
8. Bandar Lampung
9. Bengkulu
10. Bangka Belitung
11. DKI Jakarta
12. Banten
13. West Java
14. Central Java
15. D.I. Yogyakarta
16. East Java
17. West Kalimantan
18. Central Kalimantan
19. South Kalimantan
20. East Kalimantan
21. North Sulawesi
22. Central Sulawesi
23. South Sulawesi
24. South East Sulawesi
25. Gorontalo
26. West Sulawesi
27. Bali
28. East Nusa Tenggara
29. West Nusa Tenggara
30. Maluku
31. North Maluku
32. Papua
33. West Papua

The filing date assigned to an application filed with a regional office is the date the application is received (properly completed, and with supporting documents) at the regional office. The application is then forwarded to the Directorate-General of Intellectual Property in Jakarta.

However, applications filed with regional offices have sometimes been mishandled. For example, in Lie Wie Bing v. Ong Bambang Hartono (Supreme Court decision No.131 PK/Pdt.Sus/2012) an application was filed with the Surabaya regional office on 6 May 2008, but a filing date of 26 May 2008 (when all the required documents were received in the Jakarta office) was assigned. This became a major issue, because an application for registration of similar trademark was filed in Jakarta on 26 May 2008. The Court found that the regional application was properly filed, but that complete documents were not forwarded by the regional office to Jakarta. A later filing date was assigned when delivery of complete documents was subsequently arranged.  The regional office was found to be at fault, and the Court ordered that a filing date of 6 May 2008 be assigned. A win for the applicant in the end, but one that was achieved only after incurring significant legal expenses (associated with a Commercial Court proceeding and Supreme Court appeals, with no prospects of recovering costs from the losing party).

Despite Lie Wie Bing's experience, using regional offices offers time and costs efficiencies, and are generally a good option for applicants based outside of Jakarta. 

(Authored by Dian Kirana, Associate)

Meterai

In Indonesia, legally binding documents that include a monetary transaction should have stamp duty (meterai) affixed.

Currently, and according to article 1 of Government Regulation on Changes of Stamp Duty Tariff and Amount of Nominal Price (No. 24 of 2000), a IDR6,000 (around USD0.45) meterai stamp can be applied to the following documents:

• contracts;
• notarial deeds;
• land title deeds;
• copies of these documents; and
• other documents which include a monetary transaction valued IDR1 million (around USD75) or more:

and according to article 2 of the same regulation, a IDR3,000 (around USD0.22) meterai stamp can be applied to the following documents:

• bank cheques (regardless of value); and
• any other documents that include a monetary transaction of IDR250,000 (around USD19) and up to IDR 1 million (around USD75).

If stamp duty is not affixed, the documents are still treated as valid legal documents.  However, the documents cannot be used as evidence in Court (article 1 of Government Regulation on Changes of Stamp Duty Tariff and Amount of Nominal Price (No.24 of 2000).

Where payment of stamp duty is arranged after the fact, an administrative penalty of 200% of the amount payable is applicable (article 8, Law on Payment of Stamp Duty (No.13 of 1985)).

Recently, we became aware that the Directorate-General of Taxation plans to increase the amount of duty payable (see here).  It is proposed that the IDR6,000 meterai be increased to IDR18,000 (around USD1.35), and the IDR3,000 meterai be increased to IDR10,000 (around USD0.75). Revisions to the Law on Payment of Stamp Duty are in the National Legislative Program for 2015, and a revision is expected to be debated within this year.

(Authored by Jennifer Tangka, Associate)

DGIP databases

The Directorate General of Intellectual Property is currently supporting multiple database systems.

These include:

• IPAS (Industrial Property Automation System), a WIPO-supported system; 
• LADI (Layanan Data dan Informasi Hak Kekayaan Intelektual), which replaces the old ‘DGIP Online’; and
• WIPO Global Brand Database.

LADI is an improvement on the old DGIP Online database.  In theory, it includes information about patent, trademark and industrial design rights in all stages of prosecution (e.g. pending, registered, withdrawn, rejected, cancelled, deleted).  DGIP Online only provided information about registered rights.  In practice, however, we have noted that some registrations and pending applications are missing from LADI.

The WIPO Global Brand Database is an international database that provides information about registered and pending trademark applications filed in WIPO member countries.  It was widely expected that the WIPO Global Brand Database would be synchronised with IPAS.  However, consultation with the information technology section of DGIP has revealed that data is inputted manually into the WIPO Global Brand Database, after  the same data is inputted to IPAS.  We have also noted that the WIPO Global Brand Database has limited data fields (i.e. does not include the entire history of an application, whereas IPAS does - e.g. examination dates).

At this stage, the IPAS database - which is only accessible at the Trademark Office - is the only complete resource available.  Hopefully the DGIP is working towards providing a complete online resource in the near future.

(Authored by Kenita Abyani, Junior Associate)