Copy link

An analysis of trademark law in Indonesia

In Indonesia, the primary law on trademarks is Law No. 20 of 2016 on Marks and Geographical Indications, known as the Trademark Law. The Trademark Law was updated through Law No. 6, 2023 on the Enactment of a Replacement Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2, 2022 on Job Creation as Law. Furthermore, there are several bylaws that regulate more specific matters, including:

  • Government Regulation No. 28, 2019 concerning Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenues Applicable to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, which sets the official fees for various actions that can be filed before the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) under the Ministry of Law and Human Rights.
  • Government Regulation No. 22, 2018 on the International Registration of Marks Under the Protocols Relevant to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, which covers all aspects of international registration filed in or from Indonesia.
  • Government Regulation No. 90, 2019 concerning the Trademark Appeal Commission, established in 1995, concerning procedures for application, examination and settlement of appeals at the commission.
  • The Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 12, 2021 on the Amendment to Regulation No. 67, 2016 concerning the Trademark Registration Decree of the Director General of Intellectual Property in the Field of Trademarks. The ministerial regulation covers registration, classes of goods and services, and the rectification of issued certificates and records.
  • The Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 10, 2022 on the Amendment to Regulation of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 12, 2019 on Geographical Indications.


Emirsyah Dinar, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights
Emirsyah Dinar
Managing Partner
AFFA Intellectual Property Rights
Tel: +62 812 8700 0889

The Trademark Law holds a mark to be any sign capable of being represented graphically in the form of drawings, logos, names, words, letters, numerals, colour arrangements, in two and/or three-dimensional shapes, sounds, holograms, or a combination of two or more of these elements to distinguish goods and/or services produced by a person or legal entity in trading goods and/or services.

It acknowledges two types of trademarks: traditional and non-traditional marks. Some marks cannot be registered due to their lack of inherent distinctiveness. These conditions are met if marks:

  • Are contrary to the state ideology, laws and regulations, religious morality, ethics, or public order;
  • Are identical to, related to, or simply describe the goods and/or services for which registration is sought;
  • Contain elements that could mislead the public about the origin, quality, type, size, variety or purpose of the goods and/or services for which registration is sought, or are the names of protected plant varieties for similar goods and/or services;
  • Contain information that is not consistent with the quality, benefits, or efficacy of the goods and/or services produced;
  • Lack distinctive character;
  • Are common names and/or symbols belonging to the public; or
  • Contain functional forms.


The Trademark Law adopts a first-to-file principle. In general, any individual, organisation or company can file for trademark registration. However, the law also regulates trademark registrations that are filed in bad faith. Article 21 of the Trademark Law stipulates that an application is refused if it is submitted by an applicant in bad faith.

In practice, it is quite challenging to determine whether an application is filed in bad faith or not.

A bad-faith application that later matures to registration can always be invalidated at the Court of Commerce, as regulated under article 77 of the Trademark Law. This article stipulates that: “The lawsuit for invalidation may be filed in unlimited time if there is bad faith and/or the relevant mark contravenes the state ideology, laws and regulations, morality, religions, decency and public order”.


A trademark search is strongly suggested for anyone who wishes to file a trademark application in Indonesia. The search report will identify potential hazards and stumbling blocks to an otherwise successful registration process.

Assuming the search report gives an all-clear sign to further the application process, the applicant will then need to supply the following:

  • Name of applicant;
  • Address;
  • List of goods and services; and
  • Representation of the mark to be filed, which can be in the form of woodmark, logo or non-traditional marks.

Once the information has been provided, the patent lawyer will prepare two documents to be signed by the client: a power of attorney, and a statement of mark ownership.

Since 2019, e-filing is the only acceptable method of filing in Indonesia.


Assuming the application does not receive any opposition and provisional refusal, then it may take 10-13 months from filing to obtaining a registration number. This estimate is significantly faster than it used to be, when even a straightforward registration would take two to three years.


Applications are published for two months only. During the publication period, any interested party may file for opposition. Their opposition will be considered during the substantive examination stage.

Once the publication period has lapsed, there are no other formal means of filing for opposition, including extension requests.

To successfully oppose an application, it is strongly recommended that the opposer has a valid legal standing – namely, an earlier trademark application or registration in Indonesia. Otherwise, it is likely that the examiner will reject the opposition by citing the first-to-file principle.

Invalidations and cancellations initiated by any third party, which must be filed at the court of commerce, are only feasible once the target trademark has been registered.


A trademark can only be protected if it is registered in Indonesia, regardless of its fame. However, the Trademark Law has a mechanism to somewhat protect famous foreign trademarks from bad-faith registrations by other parties.

Should another party try to maliciously file an application for a trademark that is identical or similar to a famous foreign trademark, the application will be rejected on the basis of article 21 of the Trademark Law, which stipulates: “An application is refused if the mark is substantively similar to or identical with a well-known mark of other parties for similar goods and/or services, or a well-known mark of other parties for different goods and/or services complying with certain requirements.”

The issue is then shifted to what constitutes a famous trademark. Article 18 of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 12, 2021 on the Amendment to Regulation No. 67, 2016, concerning the Trademark Registration Decree of the Director General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) in the Field of Trademarks sets out what makes a trademark famous:

  • Level of knowledge or public recognition of the mark in the business field concerned as a well-known mark;
  • Volume of sales of goods and/or services and benefits derived from using the mark by the owner;
  • Market share controlled by the mark in relation to the circulation of goods and/or services in the community;
  • Area of use of the mark;
  • Period of use of the mark;
  • Intensity of promotion of the mark, including the value of investment used for the promotion;
  • Number of trademark applications and registrations around the world;
  • Success rate of law enforcement, in particular regarding the recognition of the mark as a well-known mark by an authorised institution; and
  • Valuation of the mark because of the reputation and quality assurance of goods and/or services protected by the mark.

However, a mark that is famous abroad does not necessarily have the same level of fame in Indonesia. This raises an issue of whether or not the trademark owner should also establish its fame in Indonesia before taking any actions against other parties.


Since Indonesia adopts the first-to-file principle, a prior use does not need to be claimed before registration. The evidence of use does not have to be submitted.

If the applicant has filed an earlier application in other countries, the applicant has six months from the priority date to claim priority in Indonesia.

Concerning non-use, by law a trademark may be cancelled at the court of commerce if a registered mark has not been used for three consecutive years from the date of registration, or from the date of last use. However, the law does not stipulate the minimum threshold of use – hence, in general, any non-use cancellation is very challenging.


A registered mark can be licensed to other parties in Indonesia. For an agreement to have binding legal effect, it will have to be recorded at the DGIP.

In general, a licence agreement should cover the details of the licensor and the licensee, the nature of licensing (exclusive or non-exclusive), the ability to sublicense (or not), the terms of the licence agreement, rights and responsibilities of the parties, and the object or trademark to be licensed.

The licence agreement must not contain provisions that directly or indirectly damage the Indonesian economy, or limitations obstructing Indonesia’s capacity to acquire and develop technology.

15/F Graha Pratama Building
Jl. MT. Haryono Kav. 15
Jakarta – 12810, Indonesia
Tel: +2 21 8379 3812

A quickstep guide to trademark law in Nigeria

The principal legislations regulating trademarks in Nigeria are the Trade Marks Act, 1965; the Trade Marks Regulations, 1967; the Merchandise Marks Act, cap M10; the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (LFN 2004); and the Trademark Malpractices (Miscellaneous Offences) Act, cap T12, LFN 2004.

Are trademark rights enforceable in Nigerian courts? Yes, trademark rights are enforceable in Nigerian courts. The owner of a registered trademark may sue to enforce their right of exclusive use of the mark before the Federal High Court of Nigeria and obtain injunctive relief to stop future violations of the trademark. See Ayman Enterprises Ltd v Akuma Ind Ltd & Ors (2003) LPELR-683 (SC).

Is the common law tort of passing off available under the statute? Yes, section 3 of the Trade Marks Act, 1965, recognises the common law tort of passing off goods as the goods of another, and allows any person to sue for passing off.

Is there interim relief for the holder of trademark rights seeking their enforcement? Yes, a proprietor may apply for interim injunctive relief to stop, on an urgent basis, the continuing violation of a registered trademark pending the hearing and determination of a suit for the enforcement of trademark rights in Nigeria. See Gallaher Ltd & Anor v BAT (Nig) Ltd & Ors (2014) LPELR-24333 (CA).

What may be registered as a mark? Section 67 of the act defines a mark to include but not be limited to a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral or any combination of these.

Mark Mordi, ALN Nigeria | Aluko & Oyebode
Mark Mordi
Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN)
ALN Nigeria | Aluko & Oyebode
Tel: +234(0)803 422 4068

Are service marks recognised in your jurisdiction? With the amendment of the trademark act by the Business Facilitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2023 (BFA), Nigeria now recognises service marks as trademarks for the purposes of registration in the country.

Does the act cover the shape of goods, their packaging, or the combination of colours? The definition of a trademark has also been expanded by the BFA to include the shape of goods, their packaging, and the combination of colours. With this amendment, what may be registered as a trademark in Nigeria has been expanded.

Are there unregistrable matters? Matters that are unlawful or contrary to public policy, scandalous designs, names of chemical substances, and marks that are confusing, similar or identical are not registrable as trademarks in Nigeria. The law also precludes geographical names in their ordinary signification from being registered. The grounds for refusal include where the mark is filed by a person not being the true proprietor, applications filed in bad faith, and a mark fraudulently obtained. See sections 11, 12, 13 and 18 of the act.

Is there a right of appeal on a refusal? Where an application to register a trademark is refused on any grounds, the applicant may file a petition seeking to overturn the refusal within 60 days. Further right of appeal lies in the Federal High Court. See section 18 of the act.

What are the use requirements? For the purpose of registration, a trademark is not required to be in use in Nigeria in relation to the specific goods or services. The law allows a trademark to be filed where the proprietor proposes to use the same in relation to the goods or services without providing evidence of actual use. However, a trademark on registration is expected to be used, as non-use is grounds for cancellation on application by a third party. Put differently, use is not required at the point of application but is expected after registration. See sections 9 and 10 of the act.

Are non-distinctive marks registrable? The register in which trademarks are kept is divided into parts A and B. While part A is reserved for marks that are already distinctive, part B covers trademarks which, though not distinctive, can become distinctive while in use. See section 10 of the act.

Uche Nwokocha, ALN Nigeria | Aluko & Oyebode
Uche Nwokocha
ALN Nigeria | Aluko & Oyebode
Tel: +234(0)703 400 1093
Email: Uche.Nwokocha@Aluko-Oyebode.Com

Are disclaimers allowed? An applicant may disclaim any part of his/her trademark that constitutes a non-distinctive element or is descriptive of the goods or services offered. See section 16 of the act.

What is the procedure for registration? The applicant must conduct an availability search to ascertain if the mark is available in the relevant classes. The application can then be filed and examined, after which an acceptance may be issued. Following the acceptance, the application proceeds to publication. Then a two-month opposition period ensues where any third party is allowed to object to the registration by filing a notice of opposition. Where no opposition is filed within this period, the applicant proceeds to pay the registration (sealing) fee, and then the registration certificate is issued.

What is the opposition procedure? The opposition is commenced by an interested party filing a notice of opposition. The registry serves the notice on the trademark applicant, who then has a one-month non-extendable deadline to file a counterstatement. On receipt of the counterstatement, the interested party prepares and serves its evidence by way of statutory declaration on the applicant who, in turn, has a period of one month to file and serve its own statutory declaration on the opponent. The opponent has a right of reply. When all processes have been filed, the tribunal issues a date for adoption/argument, and then a ruling is delivered. Appeal lies at the Federal High Court.

What are the grounds for trademark opposition? Any person may oppose the registration of a trademark in Nigeria on the grounds that the trademark is confusingly similar and/or identical to their trademark as to be capable of causing confusion in trade. It is not mandatory for the opponent’s trademark to be registered in Nigeria. A trademark containing geographical names, or one which is filed by a person not being the true proprietor, or a trademark containing any matter which is unlawful or contrary to public policy, among others, may also be opposed. See sections 11, 13, 18 and 67 of the act.

What is the timeline for obtaining registration in your jurisdiction? From filing to issuance of the registration certificate, it usually takes an estimated period of 12 to 18 months barring further delays on the part of the registry. Trademark registration takes effect from the date of the application.

What is the manner of describing goods or services? The trademark office adopts the Nice Classification of goods and services. An applicant may claim the general class headings or adopt a narrow description to fit its purpose.

Is multi-class filing applicable in your jurisdiction? Nigeria adopts a single-class filing system. Where a trademark is intended to cover multiple classes, each class of interest is required to be filed separately.

What are the routes to obtaining trademark protection in your jurisdiction? Registration with the Nigerian trademark office is the sole route to obtaining trademark protection in Nigeria as the country is not a member of any of the regional IP blocs such as the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation, or Organisation Africaine de la Propriete Intellectuelle, where protection can be sought through a filing designating Nigeria.

What are the requirements for filing a trademark in your jurisdiction? To file an application, the registry would require a specimen of the trademark (if not a wordmark) and a simply signed power of attorney. No notarisation or legalisation is required.

Is it possible to claim priority in your jurisdiction? The act empowers the president of Nigeria to designate relevant convention countries, but the president has yet to make such declaration. In practice, the registry allows priority claims, provided the trademarks are filed within six months from the international filing dates.

Does your legislation allow series marks? Yes, the act allows the registration of series trademarks.

What is the term granted by registration? The initial registration of a trademark in Nigeria is valid for seven years. Thereafter, it is perpetually renewable with each renewal according 14 years.

1, Murtala Muhammed Drive,
Ikoyi, Lagos, Nigeria
Tel: +234 1 462 8360
Fax: +44 207 681 3402

Trademarks: A mainstay of Russian trade

Trademarks are an important consideration when running a business. Russian law covers all aspects of trademarks to make business convenient and enforce the business’ rights if needed. The registration requirements are straightforward so that once the path is paved for the inflow and marketing of goods, the protection of the business comes to the fore.

Trademarks protect business from competition, but if a product is in great demand and easily finds consumers, chances are that infringement will loom on the horizon. The trademarked goods may appear on TV, and even more often on the internet. This is good for developing business but is equally attractive for infringers hiding behind trademark owners.

Trademark cases of various natures are examined by the 85 commercial courts in Russia that hear IP disputes, amounting every year to about 15,000 cases. Recently, a law was passed that allows private persons to register trademarks, which means that common courts will now also be involved in the consideration of trademark cases.

As Russia is not a common law country and trademark conflicts often have so many ramifications and overtones, different courts may look differently at particular cases without departing from specific provisions of the law.

Once in a while, the Supreme Court reviews cases examined by different commercial courts, and issues so-called resolutions where many cases are analysed and conclusions are reached to instruct lower courts when examining cases, ensuring more uniform judgments in this or that situation.

Vladimir Biriulin, Gorodissky & Partners
Vladimir Biriulin
Gorodissky & Partners

One such important decree was issued back in 2019. It explained various situations that may occur during business activities and provided relevant guidelines. For example, it examined several provisions of the Civil Code and explained that a designation filed for registration with the patent office is not yet a trademark therefore, if someone uses that designation before registration, this cannot be regarded as infringement of a trademark.

The date of filing an application serves only to calculate the period of validity of a trademark. This, however, does give a green light to trademark squatters who may wish to intercept a designation used by other people. Such cases are also known in judicial practice, and were discussed in the decree.

There are cases where businesses may seek to cancel trademarks because of non-use. The Supreme Court stated that there may be justifiable reasons for such non-use, so an excusable period of such should not be considered when calculating the non-use period.

A similar situation may take place in the case of assignment of a trademark. If that happens, a non-use action may be initiated against the current owner of the trademark. The period of time before the registration of assignment is not taken into consideration.

The latest review of the Supreme Court was issued in November 2023. It examined new controversial cases and continued its explanation of some of the old cases covered in the previous decree. In order to ensure a unified approach to the examination of cases related to non-use, the court ruled that non-use of a trademark per se does not mean that there is an abuse of right.

In doing so the court proceeded from a particular case (Case No A65-11453/2021), where the trademark owner did not use his trademark but sued the infringer of that trademark. The infringer attempted to argue that the owner was not using his trademark and thus abused his right. The court rightfully dismissed the claim.

In another case, a person obtained a trademark registration with the sole purpose of interfering in the business of goodwill users to claim unfair compensation (Case No 40-59474/2020). The court carefully examined everything that predated filing the suit and concluded that the trademark owner had no intention to use the trademark. In addition, it turned out that the trademark owner had many trademarks but had no evidence of using them. The claim was dismissed.

Abuse of right is not a rare occurrence in the legal landscape. Actions by the same trademark owner may be regarded as abuse of right in one case and be legitimate in other cases. In one case the patent office satisfied an appeal against the registration of a trademark filed by an individual entrepreneur. The owner of the trademark went to court and asked to repeal the decision of the patent office because the entrepreneur allegedly abused his right.

It transpired during the hearings that in a different case the entrepreneur indeed had abused his right, but not in the case at hand. The court concluded the unfair behaviour of the person in one case should not mar their reputation in all other cases.

Licensing is a popular method of disposal of intellectual property. According to data available for 2022, there were about 13,000 trademark licence agreements, so it is natural that many controversial situations come up during the performance of such agreements. The Supreme Court provides guidance as to how to evaluate the behaviour of the trademark owner in specific circumstances.

In one case, an entrepreneur registered a trademark and sued a company for the use of a designation confusingly similar to his trademark. The case seemed simple and entrepreneur’s claim was satisfied.

The court of appeal examined the background and found that the trademark owner had registered his trademark with the sole purpose of claiming compensation from other persons. Having his trademark, the owner did not use it on goods, nor did he make preparation for such use. Hence his behaviour was recognised as unfair and no compensation was awarded to him.

The IP rights courts are not only where controversial situations are resolved – they also have a Science Council that constantly analyses judicial practice. This provides advisory guidance to other courts as to how the enforcement of IP rights should be handled. In the first instance, the infringement of rights is dealt with by commercial courts in the respective regions. If a judgment is appealed, that appeal is examined by an IP court and, if necessary, once more by an IP court in its capacity as a court of cassation. In fact, an IP court examines most complex cases that could not be resolved correctly by lower commercial courts.

For example, trademark owners may be tempted to ask the court to impose a general ban on the use of a trademark in the future. The Science Council has explained that such claims may be satisfied by a court if the claim indicates a specific trademark and specific goods labelled with that trademark in respect of which infringement was confirmed. No ban can be imposed if the claim seeks to ban the use of similar goods because this claim is of an abstract nature.

The same situation may occur in online trade. The owner of the trademark cannot ask the court to forbid sales of counterfeit goods labelled with his trademarks. This is an abstract claim. The respondent, though, may be ordered by the court to remove from sale the goods in respect of which infringement was confirmed.

Claims to forbid the use of a designation without the indication of specific goods and services do occur, and if the court considers such claim as an abstract one, it may ask the plaintiff to amend the scope of claims, and ask the parties to prove other circumstances that may have importance in a particular case.

Judicial practice is a living organism, nurtured by the ongoing judgments of all courts. Appeals against judgments serve to further develop understanding and application of laws. Institutions such as the Supreme Court, an IP court and, in rare instances, the Constitutional Court, carefully follow what is going on in courts, collect information on the application of laws by them, and work out rules to ensure the uniform application of laws.

When regional courts examine trademark infringement cases they rely on the law in the usual way and may, in order to support their conclusions in a particular situation, refer to a decree or ruling of the Supreme Court or an IP court.

B. Spasskaya Str., 25, Bldg. 3
Moscow 129090, Russia
Tel: +7 (495) 937-6116
Fax: +7 (495) 937-6104

Taiwan’s patent, trademark figures show growth

In 2023, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) received 72,607 patent applications. This number is up 1% over the previous year. Of these applications, inventions (50,854) grew by 1% to reach an 11-year high. However, utility model patent applications (14,466) decreased by 1%, while design patents (7,287) grew by 2%. Trademark applications amounted to 91,535 cases, reflecting a 3% decrease.

As to examination efficiency, the average first action pendency was 8.9 months for invention patent applications, and just 6.2 months for trademark applications.

Resident invention and design applications rose, while utility model applications fell.

Among the Taiwan-based applicants in 2023, invention patent applications (19,634) increased by 1%, mainly due to a 4% rise in filings from corporations. However, utility model applications (13,309) were down by 3%, marking a contraction in this sector between 2022 and 2023. Design applications (3,437 cases) showed a positive trend (+1%) after six years, driven mainly by surges in filings from schools and individuals.

Non-resident invention patent applications hit new high, while utility model and design patent applications also grew.

Non-resident applications for invention patents hit an all-time high of 31,220 (+1%), while utility (1,157 cases) and design (3,850 cases) patent applications increased by 17% and 3%, respectively.

A breakdown by applicant nationality shows that Japan continued its claim to the top spot, with 13,504 overall patent applications in 2023. It was followed by the US (7,647), mainland China (5,002), South Korea (3,299) and Germany (1,198), with both mainland China and Korea reaching individual highs.

Korea had the fastest growth rate of 19% among the top five countries and regions, while mainland China also saw a sharp growth rate of 13%. The US and Germany fell by 10% and 4%, respectively. Japan also led in the number of invention and design patent applications, and mainland China surpassed other countries in utility model applications.

CF Tsai, Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law
CF Tsai
Managing Partner
Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law
Tel: +886-2-25856688

Trademark applications declined to levels before the covid-19 pandemic.

The number of trademark applications decreased by 3% to 91,535 (covering 114,680 classes, down 6%), returning to the pre-pandemic levels of 2019. Notably, there was a 3% and 4% decrease in resident (71,960) and non-resident applications (19,575), respectively.Among the top five trademark filing countries or regions, mainland China (4,822 cases) took the lead, followed by the US (3,007) and Japan (2,899). Applications filed by mainland China rose 12%, while those from the US and Japan were down 16% and 18%, respectively.

Uni-President ranked No. 1 resident trademark applicant in Taiwan for fourth straight year, while Tencent Holdings led for non-residents.

For the fourth year in a row, Uni-President was the leading resident trademark applicant. It filed 583 applications in 2023, followed by Taishin International Bank (454) and Che Tai International (163). Among non-resident applicants, Tencent Holdings of Cayman Islands moved to the top with 118 applications, followed by International Foodstuffs of the United Arab Emirates (93) and L’Oreal of France (90).

Among trademark applications by residents, class 35 (advertising, business management and retail services) topped the list with 14,477 cases, followed by class 43 (services for providing food, temporary accommodation; 7,187) and class 30 (coffee, tea, pastries; 6,390). Except for stable application numbers in class 43 and class 25 (clothing, footwear, headwear; 2,896), all application numbers for the top 10 classes decreased by 2.4% to 12.6%.

Of the non-resident trademark applications, class 9 (computer and technology) led with 3,910 cases. With the exception of class 30 (coffee, tea, pastries; 1,116 cases; +6.7%), all application numbers for the top 10 classes decreased by 2.1% to 23.5%.

Yu-Li Tsai, Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law
Yu-Li Tsai
Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law
Tel: +886-2-25856688

Invention patent application pendency remained stable to help build industry portfolio.

The TIPO went full throttle to optimise examination quality and efficiency. As a result, the average first action wait was 8.9 months for invention patent applications in 2023. For trademark applications, the average first action wait rose by a month to 6.2 months due to eight-year surges in trademark applications and limited manpower. However, 90,043 cases were disposed of in 2023, which accounts for 98.37% of trademark applications.

Top 100 patent applications.

The TIPO’s 2023 statistics show that TSMC maintained its position as the top domestic patent applicant for the eighth consecutive year, filing 1,956 applications.

Among foreign applicants, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics moved up to the top spot for the first time, with 978 applications. Both TSMC and Samsung set individual record highs for the numbers of their applications. For overall patent grants, TSMC led the pack for domestic applications with 1,040 grants, and US-based Applied Materials was the most prolific foreign applicant with 591 grants.

TSMC ranked top domestic applicant in overall patent applications and invention patent applications for 8th straight year.

TSMC led the domestic applications with 1,956 cases of patent applications (+28%) in 2023. Of the top 10 domestic applicants, Mediatek (second, with 544 cases) and Nanya Tech (fifth, with 373) reached all-time highs. In addition, Inventec (sixth, with 330, +14%) and Delta Electronics (10th, with 270, +32%) hit 10-year and 15-year highs, respectively.

The top 100 domestic patent applicants filed 12,922 cases (+1%) between them in 2023, delivering a seventh consecutive year of growth. The number of invention patent applications (9,982) saw a 4% increase, mainly driven by corporations and research institutes. Despite a 1% rise in utility model applications by industries, the total filings in utility model (2,273 cases) and design patent applications (667 cases) experienced declines of 6% and 16%, respectively. This was mainly attributed to a downturn in applications from schools and research institutes.

Lu-Fa Tsai, Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law
Lu-Fa Tsai
Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law
Tel: +886-2-25856688

Taiwan Co-operative Bank took lead in both overall patent applications and invention patent applications.

There were six banks among the top 100 domestic patent applicants in 2023. With an all-time high of 223 cases among all domestic banks, Taiwan Co-operative Bank topped the list of patent applications for the second consecutive year and secured the top spot for bank invention patent applications (35). Following closely were the MEGA International Commercial Bank (195) and CTBC Bank (144 cases).

For school applicants, Taipei Chengshin University of Science and Technology led in overall patent applications, while National Cheng Kung University was most active in filing invention patents.

Twenty-four schools were among the top 100 domestic applicants for overall patent applications in 2023. Taipei Chengshin University of Science and Technology ranked first with 140 applications for the fourth straight year. Meanwhile, National Cheng Kung University (114 cases) claimed the first spot in school rankings for invention patent applications, followed by National Tsing Hua University (98) and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (91). Notably, National Chinyi University of Technology (ranking fourth with 88 cases) emerged as the leader among technology universities.

Industrial Technology Research Institute maintained its top position for overall patent applications for 23 years in a row.

Three research centres were also among the top 100 domestic applicants for overall patent applications in 2023. The Industrial Technology Research Institute placed eighth in the overall rankings with 315 applications, maintaining its top position among research institutes for the 23rd consecutive year. Following closely were the Metal Industries Research & Development Centre (101) and the Taiwan Textile Research Institute (42), ranking 34 and 90, respectively.

Samsung Electronics claimed the top spot among foreign patent applicants for the first time.

Samsung Electronics became the largest foreign patent applicant for the first time, with 978 applications in 2023. It was followed by US-based Applied Materials (779) and Qualcomm (639). Among the top 10 foreign applicants, Samsung, Japan-based Tokyo Electron (fourth, with 555 cases), Korea-based Coupang (sixth, 454), ASML Netherlands (seventh, 309), and US-based Lam Research (10th, 264) all posted record high numbers of applications.

The top 100 foreign patent applicants collectively filed 14,910 cases (+2%) in 2023, mainly driven by the rise in invention (13,350 cases, +2%), utility model (185 cases, +2%) and design patent applications (1,375 cases, +5%).

13 Fl., 27 Sec. 3, Chung San N. Rd.,
Taipei 104, Taiwan, ROC
Tel: 886-2-25856688 #8187
Fax: 886-2-25989900

Copy link