Trademark Squatting in Indonesia: What to Do When Your Brand Is Already Taken

A regional food brand about to open its first Jakarta outlet, or a Singapore skincare company shipping its first pallet to a Surabaya distributor, often runs a routine name search and discovers trademark squatting syndicate in Indonesia has already claimed their brand. Then, what to do? This is a guide for founders, in-house counsel, and country managers facing that exact situation.

Trademark squatting in Indonesia happens because the country runs a first-to-file system. Whoever files first shall be declared lawful owner of the trademark, regardless of who used it first or whether such trademark actually originates abroad. Once an international brand owner discovers its name is taken, three realistic paths exist: a trademark cancellation lawsuit, a negotiated buyout or license, or filing a new, distinguishable trademark.

In practice, the brand owners who move within weeks of discovering the block, before the registrant senses leverage, tend to reach the fastest and least contentious outcome. Waiting months to react is what typically turns a resolvable registration problem into a drawn-out Commercial Court dispute.

Business Hub Asia regularly supports foreign and local brand owners through exactly this process, from clearance searches before a launch to representing clients in cancellation filings once a squatter has already registered the mark. 

What Is Trademark Squatting in Indonesia?

Trademark squatting in Indonesia is the practice of registering a brand name, logo, or slogan that belongs to another party that has not yet been filed locally, usually with the intent to sell or license it back to the rightful brand owner at a healthy markup.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines trademark squatting as the registration or utilization of a mark—typically an established foreign brand—that has not yet been registered in the local jurisdiction or has been registered without subsequent commercial use by its owner. While the statutory text of Indonesia’s Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications does not explicitly employ the term “squatting,” its legal framework addresses such practices through provisions governing bad-faith filings and non-use cancellation.

How Squatters Usually Operate

• They monitor popular brands on social media or global markets but have not yet filed with Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP, locally DJKI, under the Ministry of Law).
• They file the exact mark, or a close variation, often across several goods and services classes to widen their leverage.
• Once registered, they wait for the real brand owner to attempt market entry or their own registration, then open negotiations for a buyout, license, or distribution tie-in.

Why Does Trademark Squatting Happen So Often in Indonesia?

Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property received roughly 500 new trademark applications every working day, with cumulative filings passing 1.92 million by April 2025, according to the agency’s own reporting. That volume, combined with a pure first-to-file rule, creates constant openings for opportunistic filings.

Di bawah Article 3 of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications (“the Trademark Law”), rights to a mark are acquired only once it is registered, not through prior use alone. A brand can be well known internationally and still lose the local registration race to a filing made months earlier by an unrelated party.

DJKI has cut its average processing time from seven to eight months down to a maximum of six months, and introduced automatic renewal approval that can complete in about ten minutes for eligible marks. Faster processing helps legitimate owners, but it equally rewards squatters who file quickly and cleanly.

What Are Your Options When Your Brand Is Already Registered by Someone Else?

Once a search on DJKI’s database confirms someone else holds the registration, the realistic options fall into five categories. The table below is a self-contained summary a reader can act on without reading further.

What Is Trademark Registration in Indonesia and How Does It Actually Work?

Trademark registration in Indonesia follows a first-to-file model administered by DJKI. An applicant does not need to already be selling in Indonesia to file, which is precisely why registering early, ahead of market entry, is the single most effective defense against squatting.

The standard filing sequence has five stages: a clearance search on DJKI’s database, submission of the application with the correct Nice Classification classes, formal and substantive examination, a two-month public opposition window, and certificate issuance if no valid opposition succeeds.

DJKI recorded 129,819 to roughly 130,253 trademark applications by late November 2024 alone, part of a broader intellectual property filing total that grew well above 300,000 applications for the year, according to the agency’s year-end reporting. Registering a single class is rarely enough protection for a growing brand.

Businesses entering Indonesia through a locally incorporated entity, including a PT PMA (Perseroan Terbatas Penanaman Modal Asing, or foreign-owned limited liability company), should treat trademark filing as a pre-launch task rather than a post-launch afterthought. Business Hub Asia’s Trademark Registration Services are typically scoped alongside company setup for exactly this reason.

Related article : 

• Indonesia Trademark Registration: The 2026 Regulation’s Real Business Impact
• Trademark Registration Indonesia: The Complete Guide for Foreign Brands

What Does First-to-File Mean If Someone Already Filed Your Brand?

Because Indonesia rewards the earliest filing date rather than the earliest user, finding that someone already filed your brand does not automatically end the case. It means the response has to work within, or around, that earlier filing date rather than against it.

If the earlier filer is a genuine competitor with an independent, legitimate reason for the name, a cancellation case is unlikely to succeed, and a new, distinguishable mark or a licensing conversation is usually the more realistic path forward.

If the earlier filer never used the mark commercially, or clearly copied a name it had no independent reason to choose, the same first-to-file rule that let the registration happen also opens cancellation grounds under Articles 21(3), 74(1), and 76 to 79 of Law No. 20/2016.

Related article : Trademark Indonesia: What Landmark Cases Reveal

Why Filing in Only One Trademark Class Is a Common Mistake

Many businesses register a brand under the single class tied to their current product, then discover months later that a squatter has taken the same name in an adjacent class the business planned to enter next.

The PUMA mosquito-repellent case illustrates the same dynamic in reverse. A mark famous in one category was copied into a completely unrelated class, and the Commercial Court still found bad faith based on the mark’s fame rather than any overlap in products.

Most of the time a business will need classes suddenly, rather than planning ahead. This move will be more costly and risky once a squatter has already claimed them across the fence. However IP Consultants will gladly serve on an urgency basis or even push for litigation to earn bigger pies.. This is where Business Hub Asia’s Trademark Registration Services typically start: understanding where the business is headed and not only where it is today.

Litigation or Negotiation: Which Route Fits a Squatting Case?

Both routes can resolve a squatting problem, but they trade off differently on time, cost exposure, and certainty. Neither is automatically the right answer; the fit depends on how badly the business needs the exact mark and how strong the bad-faith or non-use evidence is.

Because outcomes turn on case-specific evidence such as prior use records, social media reach, and the squatter’s own filing history, this comparison is a starting framework, not a substitute for a case-by-case legal assessment before committing to either route.

Real Trademark Squatting Cases in Indonesia

Reported disputes, including one that reached Indonesia’s Supreme Court twice, show how differently these cases can end, even for globally known brands, which is why an evidence-based strategy matters more than the brand’s international profile.

IKEA vs. PT Ratania Khatulistiwa

A rattan furniture maker from Surabaya, PT Ratania Khatulistiwa, registered “IKEA” in 2013 as an acronym for Intan Khatulistiwa Esa Abadi and sued to cancel the Swedish retailer’s earlier Indonesian registrations for non-use. Indonesia’s Supreme Court sided with the local company because IKEA had not opened stores or sold Class 20 and 21 goods locally within the statutory window, as reported by CNN Indonesia and confirmed in the Supreme Court’s own ruling.

Pierre Cardin vs. Alexander Satryo Wibowo

French designer house Pierre Cardin sued Indonesian businessman Alexander Satryo Wibowo to cancel his “Pierre Cardin” wordmark and logo, registered in Class 3 for cosmetics and perfume in Indonesia since 29 July 1977, decades before Pierre Cardin’s own Indonesian registration in 2009.

The Central Jakarta Commercial Court rejected the cancellation lawsuit in June 2015, ruling it was filed more than five years after Wibowo’s registration date, past the deadline set by Article 69 of the then-applicable Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks.

Under that older law, the no-deadline exception covered only marks conflicting with religion, morality, or public order, not bad faith, so alleging bad faith could not save a late-filed claim. The Supreme Court upheld the rejection on cassation and again on judicial review in Decision No. 49 PK/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2018, as reported by Netral News.

Article 77(2) of the current Law No. 20/2016 closed this exact gap by letting bad-faith cancellation claims proceed without any time limit. A similarly timed case filed today would not automatically fail on the deadline alone, though the underlying bad-faith evidence would still need to convince the court.

Monster Energy vs. Andria Thamrun

California-based Monster Energy Company sued Surabaya entrepreneur Andrias Thamrun over his locally registered “Monster” mark for beverages, arguing the name traded on its global reputation. Indonesian courts have repeatedly weighed such cases in favor of local registrants where the foreign brand had not yet entered the Indonesian market at the time of filing, according to Indonesian news reporting on the dispute.

PUMA vs. “Puma” Mosquito Repellent

German sportswear maker PUMA sued an Indonesian mosquito-repellent registrant, Reno Mustopoh, over a “Puma” mark registered in a completely different goods class. The Central Jakarta Commercial Court ruled the registration invalid for bad faith, reasoning that riding on a globally famous mark’s reputation is unlawful even across unrelated product categories, as reported by Detik and legal industry coverage of case No. 16/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2023/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst.

Across these four cases, the deciding factor changed each time: IKEA lost on non-use, Pierre Cardin lost on a missed filing deadline, Monster Energy faced a local registrant who filed before it entered the market, and PUMA won by proving deliberate free-riding on fame. Brand size or financial power decided none of them.

How Can Trademark Registration Services Help You Avoid or Resolve Squatting?

Professional trademark registration services reduce squatting risk at two points: before a squatter files, through early clearance and multi-class registration, and after a squatter has already filed, by building the evidentiary case a cancellation lawsuit or negotiation will need.

• Clearance searches across DJKI’s database and common variants before a brand name is finalized or announced publicly.
• Multi-class filing strategy so a brand is protected across every category it currently sells in, and reasonably plans to sell in.
• Watch and monitoring services that flag new applications resembling a client’s mark during the two-month opposition window, when blocking a squatter is cheapest.
• Evidence preparation for cancellation cases, including prior-use documentation, sales records, and market recognition data.

Because every squatting case turns on different facts, cost, evidence quality, business timeline, Business Hub Asia scopes its Trademark Registration Services and dispute support individually after understanding a client’s situation, rather than quoting a fixed package upfront.

What Should You Do First If Your Brand Has Already Been Squatted?

The sequence below reflects the order that tends to preserve the most options. Each step is meant to be carried out with qualified counsel rather than independently, since evidence gathered incorrectly can weaken a later cancellation claim.

1. Confirm the registration status, class coverage, and filing date on DJKI’s public database rather than relying on assumptions about what is protected.
2. Assess whether the registration is still within its 2-month publication window, which allows a faster and cheaper opposition instead of a full cancellation lawsuit.
3. Compile prior-use evidence: sales invoices, marketing dates, social media history, and any regional or international registrations that predate the Indonesian filing.
4. Have qualified counsel assess whether the facts support a bad-faith claim, a non-use claim, or neither, before choosing between litigation and negotiation.
5. If negotiation is chosen, approach it through counsel rather than directly, to avoid statements that could later undermine a cancellation claim if talks fail.

Protecting Your Brand’s Future in Indonesia

Trademark squatting in Indonesia is a structural risk of a fast, first-to-file system, not a sign that a brand did anything wrong. Brands that treat registration as a pre-launch priority, and that respond quickly when a conflict surfaces, consistently end up with more options and lower costs than those that wait.

Business Hub Asia’s Trademark Registration Services team can run a clearance search before launch or assess an existing squatting situation and outline the realistic paths forward. For more court examples like the ones above, see the related guide on trademark Indonesia landmark cases. Book a consultation with Business Hub Asia’s trademark team to review a specific case before deciding between litigation and a negotiated settlement.