Anti-Counterfeiting Methods: Choose the Right Strategy to Get Additional Protection for Your Intellectual Property - AFFA IPR

Anti-Counterfeiting Methods: Choose the Right Strategy to Get Additional Protection for Your Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property1 Comment

Counterfeiting is a pervasive issue that threatens the integrity of Intellectual Property (IP) across various industries. From luxury goods to pharmaceuticals, counterfeit products not only harm brand reputation but can also endanger consumers. In this article, we will explore the most effective anti-counterfeiting methods available and guide you in choosing the right strategy based on the type of IP you seek to protect.   Before diving into anti-counterfeiting methods, it is crucial to understand what counterfeiting is and its broad impact. Counterfeiting involves the unauthorized production of goods that imitate genuine products, leading to financial losses, reputational damage, and potential legal liabilities. And that’s something you want to avoid.   Anti-Counterfeiting Methods Overview   In addition to registering and/or recording your Intellectual Property with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (Kemenkumham) or IP Customs Recordation, several other methods are available to strengthen the protection of your IP. But each comes with strengths and weaknesses. These methods can be categorized into physical and digital solutions, as well as legal and technological approaches.   Physical Anti-Counterfeiting Methods Holograms and Security Labels Holograms and security labels are widely used to authenticate products. These features are difficult to replicate, making them an effective deterrent against counterfeiters. This method appropriate for Trademarks, Patents, and Copyright-protected products such as luxury goods, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and official documents. Watermarks Watermarks are subtle marks embedded into materials like paper or textiles. They are invisible under normal conditions but can be seen when held against light. This method appropriate for Copyright-protected works, Industrial Designs, and legal document for Trade Secrets. Unique Serial Numbers and Barcodes Unique identifiers such as serial numbers and barcodes are used to track products throughout the supply chain. This method appropriate for Patented products, Trademarks, or hi-regulated products such as electronics, pharmaceuticals, and automotive parts.   Digital Anti-Counterfeiting Methods   RFID Tags and QR Codes Radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags and QR codes store product information that can be scanned to verify authenticity. This method appropriate for Trademarks, Patents, or products that require real-time tracking, like fashion items, electronics, and pharmaceuticals. Blockchain Technology Blockchain provides a decentralized ledger that records every transaction associated with a product. This method offers a transparent and tamper-proof way to verify product authenticity. This method appropriate for Patented products, Trademarks, or products with high levels of security, such as luxury goods, fine art, and collectibles. Digital Watermarking Digital watermarking embeds information directly into digital media, such as images, videos, or audio files, which can then be used to verify authenticity. This method appropriate for Copyright-protected digital content like music, videos, images, and software.   Selecting the Right Anti-Counterfeiting Method The best anti-counterfeiting strategy depends on the type of IP you are protecting and the specific threats you face. Here’s a brief guide:   Trademarks Consider using physical security features like holograms and security labels, along with digital solutions such as RFID tags or blockchain for high-value items.   Patents Employ unique serial numbers, barcodes, and blockchain to ensure product integrity and traceability.   Copyrights Use digital watermarking for digital media and watermarks for physical documents or packaging. In this digital era you can choose invisible watermark by using steganography.   Trade Secrets Focus on strong legal protections and technological solutions like encryption to prevent unauthorized access and copying.   Counterfeiting remains a significant challenge for IP owners, but by employing the right combination of anti-counterfeiting methods, you can effectively protect your intellectual property. Assess your specific needs, the nature of your IP, and the risks you face to determine the most appropriate strategy. Should you need more information about additional protection for your Intellectual Property, dont hesitate to contact us via email: [email protected].

Key Proposed Amendments to the Indonesia's Patent Law - AFFA IPR

Key Proposed Amendments to the Indonesia’s Patent Law

Patent, Intellectual Property

The proposed amendments to Indonesia’s Patent Law, specifically the second revision of Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents, are designed to modernize the country’s legal framework to better align with the evolving economic environment, international obligations, and the rapid pace of technological advancement. These updates aim to make Indonesia’s Patent System more adaptable and responsive to contemporary needs, while also harmonizing it with international standards.   The key focus of the proposed amendments is to align Indonesia’s Patent Regulations with global agreements, such as the TRIPS Agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO). This alignment is crucial to ensuring that Indonesia’s Patent System meets international standards, thereby enhancing the protection of intellectual property within the country. The proposed amendments also seek to simplify the Patent Registration process, making it more efficient and accessible, which is expected to encourage greater innovation and research. By improving these processes, the government aims to boost Indonesia’s economic competitiveness and attract more investment in research and development.   The process of drafting these proposed amendments involved extensive consultation and collaboration. Internal discussions within the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (Kemenkumham), coupled with Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with various stakeholders, played a significant role in shaping the draft. The Academic Manuscript and draft law underwent continuous refinement, ensuring the proposed changes were well-founded and thoroughly considered.   The proposed amendments introduce several critical updates to the Patent Law. One of the most significant changes is the redefinition of what constitutes an invention, particularly in light of new technologies like the Internet of Things (IoT), 5G, and Artificial Intelligence (AI). The novelty grace period has also been extended from six to twelve months, allowing inventors more time to secure their Patents after initial publication. Additionally, the proposed amendments clarify and strengthen the enforcement of Patent Rights, providing clearer guidelines on what constitutes infringement and how it can be addressed.   Other important changes include provisions that simplify the Patent Application process and allow for re-examinations, giving the applicants the much needed opportunity to correct or improve their applications post-submission. The proposed amendments also allow Patents to be used as fiduciary guarantees, thereby enhancing their value as financial instruments. Furthermore, the proposed law introduces measures to facilitate the transfer of technology, ensuring that Patents contribute to broader economic and technological growth in Indonesia.   We herewith summarize the key proposed amendments for your perusal:   Current Patent Law Proposed Amendments 1. DEFINITION OF INVENTION Article 1 (2):  Invention means an idea of an inventor embodied into a specific problem solving activity in the field of technology in the form of product or process, or refining and developing product or process. Article 1 (2) to be amended as follows:  Invention means an idea of an inventor embodied into a specific problem solving activity in the field of technology in the form of product or process, or refining and developing product and/or process, systems, methods and uses. Reasons: The rapid development of technology, Internet of Things, 5G Technology, Artificial Intelligence, has given rise to different interpretations of the category of invention claims, so that many applications related to this technology have been rejected. Also, to keep up with developments in international practice, it is necessary to change the definition of invention. Adjusting Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation into Law: (1) Addition of the category of Simple Patents “Simple Methods” and (2) Implementation of Patents-methods, systems, and uses. 2. NOT INCLUDE IN INVENTIONS Article 4(c):  Inventions do not include: c. rules and methods in conducting activity of: involving mental activity; games; and business. Article 4(c) to be amended as follows:  Inventions do not include: c. methods in conducting activity of: involving mental activity; games; and Business. Reason: Rules = Methods Article 4(d):  Inventions do not include: d. rules and methods containing only computer program; Article 4(d)to be amended as follows:  Inventions do not include: d. computer program; Reasons: Computer Program is fully within the scope of the Copyright Law; Computer Program means a set of instructions that are expressed in the form of languages, codes, schemes, or in any form that is intended for a computer to perform specific functions or to achieve certain outcomes. Inventions implemented on computers, their arrangements are grouped into categories of systems, methods, and uses, in accordance with the expansion of the definition of Inventions to be regulated in the proposed amendment. Article 4(f):  Inventions do not include: f. discovery in the form of: new use of existing and/or known product; and/or new forms from existing compound which does not generate significantly enhanced efficacy and contains different relevant known chemical structures to compound. To be repealed Reasons: This article is an obstacle to the industrialization of local drugs that should be able to encourage public welfare, especially in the health sector, in addition to being an incentive award. Causing the local industry that was previously a drug producer to become an industry that only operates as a distributor, or an industry in the form of finished drugs to switch to an industry that only makes the packaging of the drug and not the elements of the drug. Article 9(c):  Inventions do not include: c. any theory and method in the field of science and mathematics; To be moved to Article 4(f) Inventions do not include: f. any theory and method in the field of science and mathematics; Reason: Theory and method in the field of science and mathematics are not inventions because they do not fit the definition of invention because they do not solve specific problems in the field of technology. 3. NOVELTY GRACE PERIOD Article 6(1):  The Invention is not deemed to have been published provided that within period of 6 (six) month prior to the Filing Date. Article 6(1) to be amended as follows:   The Invention is not deemed to have been published provided that within period of 12 (twelve) month prior…

Legal Obstacles to Trademarking Indonesia's National Emblem - AFFA IPR

Legal Obstacles to Trademarking Indonesia’s National Emblem

Trademark, Industrial Design

The Garuda Pancasila, the National Emblem of the Republic of Indonesia, is indeed iconic. The figure of this giant bird that is said to be able to cover the sunlight has been known since the 5th century and has become a symbol of many Hindu kingdoms in the archipelago. So, since it was established and used in various national activities, its presence has always inspired people from each generation to display it in a better and better form.   But is that allowed? Modifying and/or using the Garuda Pancasila as a Trademark in Indonesia? Here is the answer from the perspective of Intellectual Property law.   This large and strong figure, containing the date of the Proclamation of Independence of the Republic of Indonesia on its feathers (17-8-1945), was already in the minds of the nation’s founders when they determined the Garuda Pancasila as the National Emblem. In early 1950, the government of the Republic of Indonesia United (RIS) created a technical committee called the National Emblem Committee under the coordination of Minister Zonder Porto Folio Sultan Hamid II, with the Chairman of the Committee, Muhammad Yamin, and Ki Hajar Dewantara, M.A. Pellaupessy, Mohammad Natsir, and R.M. Ng. Purbatjaraka as its members. President Soekarno then inaugurated it at the RIS Cabinet Meeting on February 11, 1950. Its use was then regulated in Government Regulation No. 43 of 1958 and amended by the enactment of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 24 of 2009 concerning the Flag, Language, National Emblem, and National Anthem to implement Article 36A of the 1945 Constitution (UUD 1945) which reads, “The National Emblem is the Garuda Pancasila with the motto Bhineka Tunggal Ika.” For those of you who need clarification as to why the 1945 Constitution already contains the Garuda Pancasila even though the draft was only made in 1950, it is because Article 36A resulted from the Second Amendment in 2000. Previously, only Article 36 contained the following: “The National Language is Indonesian.” However, after the amendment, Article 36A (national emblem), 36B (national anthem), and 36C (further provisions related to the flag, language, national emblem, and national anthem are regulated by law) were presented.   Then specifically, Article 57 of Law Number 24 of 2009 contains the following prohibitions related to the National Emblem: It is prohibited to cross out, write, draw, or damage the National Emblem with the intention of tarnishing, insulting, or degrading the honor of the National Emblem; It is prohibited to use the National Emblem that is damaged and does not match the shape, color, and size comparison; It is prohibited to create a symbol for an individual, political party, association, organization, and/or company that is the same as or resembles the national emblem; and It is prohibited to use the National Emblem for purposes other than those regulated by the Law.   A person who violates the prohibition can be punished with a maximum imprisonment of one year or a maximum fine of IDR 100 million.   Although later, the Constitutional Court, through Constitutional Court Decision Number 4/PUU-X/2012, stated the provisions of Article 57 letter d jo. Article 69 letter c of Law 24/2009 concerning the prohibition of the use of the National Emblem for other purposes and its criminal sanctions are contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and do not have binding legal force, which means that since then the National Emblem can be used freely to a certain extent to support the spirit of nationalism, but does not apply if it is related to Trademark registration.   So even if you can use the Garuda Pancasila in a design for a t-shirt, cap, pin, or other merchandise that is traded, you still cannot register it as a Trademark. As regulated in Article 21 Paragraph (2)b of the Trademark Law, which reads, “An application is rejected if the Trademark is an imitation or resembles the name or abbreviation of a name, flag, insignia, symbol or emblem of a country, or national or international institution, except with the written approval of the authorized party.”   Legal Problems on the Use of National Emblem in Sports Jerseys   A few months ago, there was a debate regarding the use of the National Emblem on the jersey of the Indonesian Football Team. It is common and natural for a national jersey to change its design every season or every year. When the jersey’s vendor changes, the design and logo containing the National Emblem also changes. During the last change, the latest logo was registered with the name of the owner of the jersey’s manufacturer, and this invited controversy because the public began to understand the existence of Article 21 Paragraph (2) b of the Trademark Law.   However, the public forgets the sentence “written approval from the authorized party.” This controversy ended in June 2024 when the Indonesia Football Association (PSSI), the official parent organization of football in Indonesia, took over all logos applied to the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). So, if we open the DGIP database today, both old and new logos have listed PSSI as the Trademark owner.   Thus, PSSI has the Exclusive Right to use the logo, and anyone who wants to use it must have permission from PSSI.   Old (DID2024030570) & New (DID2024006041) Logo of PSSI   It is a bit unfortunate that the logo does not contain the initials of PSSI, so it will cause polemics if other sports organizations want to register a logo that also contains the National Emblem. This means that other parties must file and register it with a different logo, but it still has similarities in principle to the logo filed by the PSSI. Should you need further information regarding Trademark protection or registration in Indonesia and worldwide, please do not hesitate to email us at [email protected].

FAQs: Trademark Enforcement in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions about Trademark Enforcement in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Trademark

Trademark Enforcement Proceedings Q: What types of legal or administrative proceedings are available to enforce the rights of a Trademark Owner against an alleged infringer or dilutive use of a mark, apart from previously discussed opposition and cancellation actions? Are there specialised courts or other tribunals? Is there any provision in the criminal law regarding Trademark Infringement or an equivalent offence?   A: There are several approaches that need to be considered when commencing the Trademark enforcement proceedings. It is always a prudent course of action to start with sending a cease and desist letter against the infringer to immediately cease the infringing action. Should the infringer does not comply with the requests that have been addressed in the cease and desist letter, then the Trademark Owner has the option to file a criminal action against the infringer to the civil investigator at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or to the Indonesian Police.   All Intellectual Property disputes are the domain of the Court of Commerce. Apart from invalidations and cancellations of registered marks, any party with legal rights can also seek civil actions through the Court of Commerce, namely to request preliminary injunction and to seek for damages or remedies.   The penalties for infringements are covered by the Trademark Law, namely the following articles:   CHAPTER XVIII  CRIMINAL PROVISIONS Article 100 (1) Every person unlawfully uses any Mark which is identical to registered Mark of other parties for similarly produced, and/or traded goods and/or services, shall be sentenced to imprisonment of up to 5 (five) years and/or fines up to Rp2,000,000,000.00 (two billion rupiahs).   (2) Every person unlawfully uses any Mark which is substantially similar to registered Mark of another party for similarly produced and/or traded goods and/or services, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 4 (four) years and/or fines up to Rp2,000,000,000.00 (two billion rupiahs).   (3) Every person violating the provisions as referred to in section (1) and section (2), whose goods cause health impairment, environment distortion, and/or human deceases, shall be sentenced to an imprisonment up to (10) ten years and/or fines up to Rp5.000.000.000,00 (five billion rupiahs).   Article 101 (1) Every person unlawfully uses any signs which are identical to Geographical Indications of other parties for similar goods and/or products or identical to registered goods and/or products, shall be sentenced to imprisonment up to 4 (four) years and/or up to Rp2.000.000.000,00 (two billion rupiahs).   (2) Every Person unlawfully uses any sign which is substantially similar to Geographical Indications of another party for similar goods and/or products or identical with registered goods and/or products, shall be sentenced with imprisonment up to 4 (four) years and/or :nes up to Rp2.000.000.000,00 (two billion rupiahs).   Article 102 Every Person who trades goods and/or services and/or product which is known or allegedly know that the goods and/or services and/or product constitute criminal acts as referred to in Article 100 and Article 101 shall be sentenced with imprisonment up to 1 (one) year or fines up to Rp200.000.000,00 (two hundred million rupiahs).   Article 103 The criminal acts as referred to in article 100 to article 102 constitute complaint delict.   Procedural Format and Timing Q: What is the format of the infringement proceeding?   A: Civil proceedings in Indonesia are conducted in writing and oral arguments. The judges will listen to the oral arguments of each party one at a time, and they rely heavily on documentary evidence. Witnesses of fact can also provide oral evidence before the court. However, a witness statement or affidavit alone will not be sufficient since it is considered merely supplementary documentary evidence. In general, the procedure of the trial is as follows: attendance at the first hearing after the court summons both plaintiff and defendant; attendance at the second hearing, when the defendant files its response to the plaintiff’s cancellation suit; preparation of the plaintiff’s reply to the defendant’s response to the suit; attendance at the third hearing to file the plaintiff’s reply; attendance at the fourth hearing when the defendant files its response to the plaintiff’s reply; preparation of the plaintiff’s evidence to be submitted to the court; attendance at the fifth hearing to submit the plaintiff’s evidence and review the defendant’s evidence; preparation and filing of the conclusion of the case based on documents and evidence filed with the court by both plaintiff and defendant; attendance at the sixth hearing on the filing of the conclusion of the case;  attendance at the seventh hearing to hear the judge’s decision; and issuance of the court’s decision.   For civil procedure, in theory a decision shall be issued within three months. However, in practice, it may take slightly longer due to the extensions requested by any of the parties involved.   Burden of Proof Q: What is the burden of proof to establish infringement or dilution?   A: In Indonesian civil procedure, the burden of proof regarding the facts on which a claim is based lies with the plaintiff. Article 1865 of the Indonesian Civil Code states that anyone who claims to have a certain right or who refers to a fact to support such a right, or who obzects to another party’s right, must prove the existence of that right or that fact. Evidence may comprise written evidence, evidence presented by witnesses, or through inference, confession or oath. In our experience, it is prudent to collect as much diverse evidential material as possible, such as purchases made by mystery shoppers, marketing materials found online and offline, and expert witnesses that may provide substantive statements pertaining to the alleged infringement. Furthermore, written evidence must be presented in the Indonesian language – translated by a sworn translator if necessary.   Standing Q: Who may seek a remedy for an alleged Trademark violation and under what conditions? Who has standing to bring a criminal complaint?   A: In accordance with article 83 of the Trademark Law, the registered mark owner and/or its licensee may file a…

FAQs Licensing and Assignment of Trademark in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions about Licensing & Assignment of Trademark in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Trademark

Licenses Q: May a licence be recorded against a Mark in Indonesia? How? Are there any benefits to doing so or detriments to not doing so? What provisions are typically included in a licensing agreement?   A: A registered Mark can be licensed out to other parties in Indonesia. For the agreement to have binding legal effect against any third party, it will have to be recorded at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (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 sub-license (or not), term of the licence agreement, rights and responsibilities of the parties, and the object or Trademark to be licensed.   The licensing agreement must not contain provisions that either directly or indirectly damage the Indonesian economy or limitation obstructing Indonesian capacity to acquire and develop technology.   Assignment Q: What can be assigned? Does the Trademark have to be registered first?   A: A Trademark application or registration can be assigned to another party, provided that the deed of assignment, which has been notarised, is recorded at the DGIP to be fully binding. The assignment shall cover all goods or services covered by the assigned mark. The other business assets are not generally required to be assigned to make the Trademark assignment valid, except if both parties agree otherwise.   Assignment Documentation Q: What documents are required for assignment and what form must they take? What procedures apply?   A: Both parties shall sign a deed of assignment that later will be notarised and submitted to the DGIP. A power of attorney will also need to be provided.   Validity Assignment Q: Must the assignment be recorded for purposes of its validity?   A: A signed deed of agreement must be recorded before the DGIP to be valid.   Security Interests Q: Are security interests recognised and what form must they take? Must the security interest be recorded for purposes of its validity or enforceability?   A: In theory, all kinds of IP rights can be used as security interests. But in practice, the recordal of security interests is not possible for the time being. Should you need more information regarding the Licensing & Assignment of Trademark in Indonesia, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

Indonesia Extends the Trademark Non-Use Period from 3 to 5 Consecutive Years - AFFA IPR

Indonesia Extends the Trademark Non-Use Period from 3 to 5 Consecutive Years

Intellectual Property, Trademark

On March 31, 2020, Indonesia officially entered the COVID-19 pandemic period with the enactment of Government Regulation Number 21 of 2020 concerning Large-Scale Social Restrictions in the Framework of Accelerating the Handling of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (Covid-I9). After facing various challenges, both for the community, the business world, and the government, the pandemic status in Indonesia was officially lifted on June 21, 2023, and changed to endemic based on the Presidential Decree of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2023 concerning the Determination of the End of the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Status in Indonesia. In post-pandemic recovery efforts, the government prioritizes economic recovery by paying attention to the needs of Small, and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).  Taking into account the specific conditions of the Indonesian economy, which hugely relies on SMEs that have limited capital and can change at any time and force majeure, through Decision Number 144/PUU-XXI/2023, which was read out at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, July 30, 2024, an adjustment was made to the time limit for Trademark non-use period from three to five consecutive years. This case began when Ricky Thio faced a Cancellation Action for his Trademark based on Article 74 of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Trademark Law) at the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court with case number 28/Pdt.Sus HKI/Merek/2023/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst from Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. wanted the cancellation of the Trademark “” with registration number IDM000553432 because it was considered not to have been used for three consecutive years. According to Ricky Thio, this situation raises uncertainty in the Trademark protection provided by the government, which has the potential to make SMEs hesitate to register their Trademarks.   Timeframe for Filing a New Trademark Cancellation Action In Decision Number 144/PUU-XXI/2023, the Constitutional Court saw the importance of adjusting the non-use time limit to 5 (five) consecutive years. This is closely related to the time limit for filing a Trademark Invalidation, which is 5 (five) years from the date of Trademark registration, as stated in Article 77 paragraph (1) of the Trademark Law. Although cancellation and invalidation are different things, the regulation is placed in the Chapter “Cancellation and Invalidation of Trademarks” in the Trademark Law.   Thus, without intending to ignore the tendency of countries that adhere to the civil law system, the adjustment of the time limit for non-use of registered Trademarks to 5 (five) years is to provide justice for all registered Trademark owners so that it does not conflict with the Principle of National Treatment and is in line with the provisions contained in Trademark Invalidation. Based on all the legal considerations above, the Applicant’s argument questioning the unconstitutionality of Article 74 paragraph (1) of the Trademark Law, especially the phrase “3 (three) years” is legally justified. In Decision Number 144/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court partially granted Ricky Thio’s request so that the changes to the article related to the deletion of the Trademark due to the Decision are as follows: Before the Constitutional Court Decision After the Constitutional Court Decision Article 74 paragraph (1) Trademark Law The cancellation of a registered Mark may also be submitted by a third party who has an interest in the form of a lawsuit to the Commercial Court based on the ground that the Mark has not been used for 3 (three) consecutive years in the trade of goods and/or services from the registration date or the last use. Article 74 paragraph (1) Trademark Law The cancellation of a registered Mark may also be submitted by a third party who has an interest in the form of a lawsuit to the Commercial Court based on the ground that the Mark has not been used for 5 (five) consecutive years in the trade of goods and/or services from the registration date or the last use. Article 74 paragraph (2) Trademark Law The reasons for an non-used Mark as referred to in paragraph (1) are invalid in the event of: a. import ban; b. temporary prohibition that is related to the permit for the distribution of goods that use the relevant Mark or a decision from an authorized party; or c. other similar prohibitions that are established with Regulation of the Government. Article 74 paragraph (2) Trademark Law The reasons for an non-used Mark as referred to in paragraph (1) are invalid in the event of: a. import ban; b. temporary prohibition that is related to the permit for the distribution of goods that use the relevant Mark or a decision from an authorized party; or c. other similar prohibitions, including in conditions of force majeure that are established with Regulation of the Government.   Force Majeure can be Used for Exceptions Force Majeure can be a legitimate reason for Trademark owners who cannot use their registered Trademark or cannot run their business normally. The Constitutional Court (MK), in Decision Number 144/PUU-XXI/2023, emphasized the importance of this exception. Force Majeure generally refers to events or effects that cannot be predicted or controlled, such as natural disasters (floods, hurricanes, earthquakes) or human actions (riots, strikes, war) that prevent someone from fulfilling their obligations. In this decision, pandemic conditions such as COVID-19 are considered Force Majeure, which justifies an exception for Trademark owners who experience difficulties using and producing their Trademarks.  The consequence of Decision Number 144/PUU-XXI/2023 is that the provisions of the Trademark Law must be adjusted to the decision. This is, of course, in line with the explanation of Article 10, paragraph (1) of Law. No. 07 of 2020 Third Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court in conjunction with the Stipulation of Government Regulation instead of Law Number 1 of 2013 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court to Become a Law in conjunction with Law No. 8 of 2011 concerning Amendments to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court in conjunction with Law Number 24 of…