Understanding Trade Secret Laws in Indonesia: Scope and Consequences - AFFA IPR

Understanding Trade Secret Laws in Indonesia: Scope and Consequences

Intellectual Property, Trade Secret

Trade Secrets are the recipe for business success in various fields, such as culinary, IT, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology.   The public often seeks ways to discover or exploit these “secrets to success” through various means, including claiming and exposing these secrets on social media.   So, what exactly are the scope and consequences for disclosing Trade Secrets? We’ve summarized it for you.   Trade Secrets are governed by Law No. 30 of 2000 concerning Trade Secrets (Trade Secret Law). The definition of Trade Secrets, as outlined in Article 1, point 1, of the Trade Secret Law, is information that is not generally known to the public in the field of technology and/or business and has economic value because it is helpful in business activities, and is kept confidential by the owner of the Trade Secret.   So, what does a Trade Secret encompass?   Article 2 of the Trade Secret Law describes the scope of Trade Secret protection as follows:   Production Methods Various steps and technologies are used to convert raw materials into finished goods. Processing Methods Methods focusing on the steps necessary to alter or modify the properties of raw materials. Sales Methods Various strategies or methods to sell products or services to consumers, considering variables like target market, product type, and sales objectives. Other Information in Technology or Business This category includes product development research, customer data, agreements with third parties, and future business strategies. Economic Value Have other secrets that provide a competitive market advantage and financial potential. Not Known to the General Public The information is not a “public secret,” meaning it is known only to certain parties and not widely known by the general public.   A common dilemma for business owners is whether to file a Patent for their Trade Secret or keep it confidential indefinitely.   However, you should know that there is a criminal penalty of up to 2 (two) years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to IDR 300,000,000 (three hundred million rupiah) for parties without permission, using the Trade Secret.   To protect your Trade Secret, here are a few options to consider:   Document all methods and/or other information as thoroughly as possible. Keep the information confidential by drafting a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) signed by all parties involved. Update the documentation whenever there are updates to the methods and/or other information related to the Trade Secret.   Additionally, you can implement access restrictions or encrypted technology to secure confidential documents, preventing unauthorized access.   However, you want to license your Trade Secret to a third party. In that case, you must record it with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) to obtain legal protection from unauthorized third-party violations. Should you need more information on Trade Secret protection in Indonesia, you can contact us via email: [email protected].

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…

FAQs: The Registration and Use of Trademark in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions About the Registration and Use of Trademark in Indonesia

Trademark, Industrial Design

Ownership of Marks Q: Who may apply for registration?   A: Since the Indonesian Trademark Law adopts the first to file principle, in general any individual, organisation or company can file for a Trademark Registration. However, the Trademark Law also regulates Trademark Registrations that are filed in bad faith. Article 21 paragraph (3) of the Trademark Law stipulates that an application is refused if it is submitted by an applicant in bad faith. While the implementation of this article during substantive examination holds true for some applications that have similarities with the already established and Well-known Marks, in practice it is quite challenging to determine whether an application is filed in bad faith or not. A bad-faith application that later matured to registration can always be invalidated at the Court of Commerce as regulated under article 77 paragraph (2) of the Trademark Law, which stipulates the following:   “The lawsuit for invalidation may be 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.”   Scope of Trademark Q: What may and may not be protected and registered as a Trademark?   A: By definition of article 1 of the Trademark Law, a Mark is any sign capable of being represented graphically in the form of drawings, logos, names, words, letters, numerals, colour arrangement, in two and;or three-dimensional shape, sounds, holograms or combination of two or more of those elements to distinguish goods or services produced by a person or legal entity in trading goods or services.   Given the definition above, then the Law acknowledges two types of trademarks, namely traditional and non-traditional marks.   Unregistered Trademarks Q: Can Trademark Rights be established without registration?   A: Indonesia is a jurisdiction that adopts the first to file principle. Hence, a prior use itself is not sufficient to establish rights in the country.   Famous Foreign Trademarks Q: Is a famous foreign Trademark afforded protection even if not used domestically? If so, must the foreign Trademark be famous domestically? What proof is required? What protection is provided?   A: A Trademark can only be protected if it is registered in Indonesia, regardless of its fame. However, the Indonesian Trademark Law has a mechanism to somewhat protect a famous foreign Trademark from bad faith registrations by other parties. Should another party try to file a malicious Trademark application that is identical or similar to a famous foreign Trademark, such application will be rejected on the basis of article 21 paragraph (1) b and c, which stipulates the following:   “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 as a famous Trademark. Article 18 of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation No. 67 2016 concerning Trademark Registration Decree of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property in the Field of Trademarks has set out the criteria of what makes a Trademark famous, such as: the level of knowledge or public recognition against the Mark in the business field that concerned as a well-known mark; the volume of sales of goods and/or services and benefits derived from using the Mark by the owner; the market share controlled by the Mark in relation to the circulation of goods and/or services in the community; the area of use of the Mark; the period of use of the Mark; the intensity and promotion of the Mark, including value of investment used for the promotion; the number of Trademark applications and registration around the world; the success rate of law enforcement, in particular regarding the recognition of the Mark as a well-known Mark by an authorised institution; or the valuation of the Mark because of the reputation and quality assurance of goods and/or services protected by the Mark.   However, a well-known mark that is famous abroad does not always necessarily have the same level of fame in Indonesia. This raises the issue as to whether the Trademark owner should also establish its fame in Indonesia before taking any action against other parties.   The Benefits of Registration Q: What are the benefits of registration?   A: Pursuant to the Trademark Law, the right on a Mark means the Exclusive Right granted by the state to a registered Mark Owner for a definite period to use his or her mark or authorise others to do otherwise. Hence, by registering a Trademark in Indonesia, the owner can establish its legal right should there is an infringement by another party. This includes, but is not limited to, requesting an e-commerce listing takedown notice, sending a cease and desist letter, filing a police report for the criminal aspect of the infringement, seeking damages at the Court of Commerce, issuing licensing rights, filing injunctions and conducting a Customs Recordal before Indonesian Customs.   Filing Procedure and Documentation Q: What documentation is needed to file a Trademark Application? What rules govern the representation of the Mark in the application? Is electronic filing available? Are trademark searches available or required before filing? If so, what procedures and fees apply?   A: 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 tumbling blocks to an otherwise successful registration process. Assuming the search report gives the all-clear for continuing the application process, the applicant shall prepare the following: name of the applicant; address; list of goods and services; and the representation of the Mark to be filed, which can be in a form of wordmark, logo or non-traditional Marks.   Once the above information has been provided, then we will prepare the following documents to be signed by the client: power of attorney; and statement…

AFFA Represented Guangzhou Sanwich Biology Technology, Co., Ltd. in a Succesful Trademark Invalidation Action in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

AFFA Represented Guangzhou Sanwich Biology Technology, Co., Ltd. in a Succesful Trademark Invalidation Action in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Trademark1 Comment

On June 11, 2024, the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court granted AFFA IPR’s lawsuit, in this case representing Guangzhou Sanwich Biology Technology, Co., Ltd., to invalidate the SEVICH Mark with Registration Number IDM000917666, which gave a decision that the mark had similarities in essence and registered in bad faith. So, how does the “first-to-file” concept apply if there is a case like the one above? The SEVICH Trademark was first registered in China on March 21, 2016, by our client, Guangzhou Sanwich Biology Technology, Co., Ltd., in Class 3, which includes “Cleaning preparations; Abrasives; Essential oils; Toothpastes (pieces).” This Trademark has also been registered in the United States, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. This business has expanded in Asia, and this year, SEVICH plans to be sold and distributed in Indonesia. However, before it could be applied for in Indonesia, it was discovered that the SEVICH Mark had been registered since November 2021 by another party. The Mark has the same writing, pronunciation, and logo and is registered in the same class. As a result, our client could not obtain registration in Indonesia, even though it should have had exclusive rights to use the Mark in trade. Therefore, our client filed a lawsuit for invalidation of the Trademark. The lawsuit was filed in March 2024 against Jong, Sylvia (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant), owner of the SEVICH Trademark in Indonesia with number 25/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2024/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. The Defendant certainly does not easily give up the registered Mark. One of the points in their answer stated that they were the first registrants, so they are the party who has the Exclusive Right to use the SEVICH Mark in Indonesia, according to Article 1 Number 5 of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications (Trademark Law): “Right on Mark means the exclusive right granted by the State to a registered Mark owner for a definite period to use his/her Mark or authorize others to do otherwise.” Applicant in Bad Faith One of the rulings in the Decision 25/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2024/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. stated that the defendant was a registrant with bad faith in registering the SEVICH mark with Registration Number IDM000917666. Applicants who have bad intentions based on the explanation of Article 21 paragraph (3) of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications are applicants who are reasonably suspected that in registering their Mark, they have the intention to imitate, plagiarize, or follow another party’s Mark for the benefit of their business, causing conditions unfair business competition, deceiving or misleading consumers. For example, a Trademark application takes the form of writing, a painting, a logo, or the same color arrangement as a Trademark belonging to another party or a Trademark that has been generally known to the public for many years, imitated in such a way that it has similarities in essence or its entirety to the already known Trademark. From this example, there has been bad faith on the part of the Applicant because at least it should be known that there was an element of intentionality in imitating a well-known Mark. The concept in this article is undoubtedly in line with the Permanent Decree of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 39K/Pdt/1989 dated 24 November 1990 which reads, “That every act of using a Mark which is confusing and deceptive and confuses the opinion and visuals of the general public is qualified as containing elements of bad faith and unfair competition,” and Permanent Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 220 K/Pdt/1986 which states, “Local entrepreneurs are obliged to use marks with national identity, not plagiarize foreign names or marks, because this can mislead consumers about the origin of a good or service.” Until finally the deliberative meeting of the Commercial Court Panel of Judges at the Central Jakarta District Court ordered the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) to invalidate the SEVICH Mark registered No. IDM000917666 on behalf of the defendant by registering the invalidation of the Mark from the General Register of Marks and announcing it in the Official Mark Gazette. Never Risk Registering Other Party’s Trademark to Begin With In a Trademark Invalidation lawsuit, if the trademark being sued is similar in essence or its entirety, and there are indications that another party registered the trademark in bad faith towards the actual owner of the trademark, and this can be proven in court, then the first to file principle can be overridden. The actual rights of the Mark owner can be restored through a court decision in Indonesia, and the Mark owner can attach proof of the decision to the Trademark Office, in this case, the DGIP, during the examination process of the Mark registration application at a later date. Should you have further questions regarding Trademark registration and protection in Indonesia and/or abroad, do not hesitate to email us at [email protected].

The Indonesian Constitutional Court Ruled Article 10 of the Copyright Law Unconstitutional - AFFA IPR

The Indonesian Constitutional Court Ruled Article 10 of the Copyright Law Unconstitutional

Intellectual Property, Copyright

On February 29, 2024, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (MKRI) decided case Number 84/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning Material Review of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright (Copyright Law) and declared Article 10 of the Copyright Law to be contrary to the 1945 State Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (Constitution of Indonesia). How is this possible?   This case began when PT Aquarius Pustaka Musik, PT Aquarius Musikindo, and songwriter Melly Goeslaw (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) discovered that songs created and/or owned Copyright were being used by a User Generated Content (UGC)-based digital service platform. In early 2020, the Petitioner even filed a civil lawsuit against Bigo Technology Ltd. as the digital service platform ‘Likee’ manager to the Central Jakarta District Court’s Commercial Court for using songs whose Copyright is under his auspices without permission. Unfortunately, the panel of judges rejected the lawsuit because the videos shown were UCG-based, i.e., originated, created, and uploaded by application users, not by Bigo. Thus, Bigo cannot be held responsible.   The Indonesian Copyright Law Does Not Yet Regulate UGC   The rejected lawsuit to Bigo and Likee could occur because there is a vacuum in the Copyright law used for UGC-based platforms. Hence, the platform manager ignores and deliberately hides behind the Circular Letter of the Ministry of Communications and Informatics Number 5 of 2016, Chapter V-C Provisions Number 2(b), which states that the UGC Platform is not responsible for goods and/or services containing content that violates Intellectual Property Rights if it can be proven that there was an error and/or negligence on the part of the merchant or Platform user.   In fact, in Article 28-C and 28-D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of Indonesia, the state guarantees its citizens to benefit from science and technology and the arts to improve the quality of life and for the welfare of humanity, as well as to obtain fair legal certainty. Thus, the Human Rights of the Petitioners must be protected, promoted, upheld, and fulfilled by the State, in this case, the government as mandated in Article 28-I paragraph (4) which explicitly states that “Protection, promotion, enforcement and fulfillment of rights Human rights are the responsibility of the state, especially the government.”   One of the methods that the state must take in protecting and upholding the fundamental rights of the Petitioners is by establishing laws and regulations that can substantively and procedurally guarantee and ensure the implementation of these rights by the instructions of Article 28-I paragraph (5) the Constitution of Indonesia. Therefore, on the one hand, the State must create a legal norm or rule with a precise, firm formulation, without multiple interpretations, and includes or encompasses matters aimed at realizing these fundamental rights. On the other hand, the Petitioners are entitled to the certainty of the quo regulations. This is inevitable for its continuity in a rule-of-law state as required in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution of Indonesia, which states, “The state of Indonesia is a state of law.”   As stated in Indonesian Copyright Law:   Article 10 Managers of business premises are prohibited from allowing the sale and/or reproduction of goods resulted from Copyrights and/or Related Rights infringements in the location under their management.  Article 114 Every Person managing business premises in all its forms who deliberately and knowingly allows the sale and/or duplication of goods resulting from infringement of Copyright and/or Related Rights in the premises that they manage as referred to in Article 10 shall be sentenced with a maximum fine of Rp100,000,000.00 (one hundred million rupiahs). Because Articles 10 and 114 of the Copyright Law are deemed not to include protection for UGC and the state is obliged to provide legal certainty, the Petitioner also submitted a Material Review of the Copyright Law to the Constitutional Court on July 30, 2023, based on the Petitioner’s Petition Submission Deed Number 83/PUU/PAN.MK/AP3/07/2023 was recorded in the Constitutional Case Registration Book on August 3, 2023, with Number 84/PUUXXI/2023, corrected and accepted by the Registrar of the Court on September 8, 2023.   Final Verdict in Favor of the Creator Until then, the Constitutional Court’s decision stated that it had granted the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety and stated that Article 10 of the Copyright Law was contrary to the Constitution of Indonesia and did not have conditionally binding legal force as long as it was not interpreted as “Manager of trading places and/or Digital Service Platforms based on User Generated Content (UGC) is prohibited from allowing the sale, display and/or duplication of goods resulting from violations of Copyright and/or Related Rights on trading venues and/or digital services that it manages.”   In particular, the Constitutional Court stated that the Petitioners’ human rights, as outlined in the Constitution of Indonesia, were impaired due to the enactment of Article 10 and Article 114 of the Copyright Law, considering that the content of the two articles being reviewed did not or did not protect fair legal certainty, because the content was inadequate and too narrow so that it cannot reach/keep up with new phenomena that have emerged as a logical consequence of technological growth and development, where one of the consequences of technological progress, especially in the information sector, has been the violation of the constitutional rights of the Petitioners. Still, the perpetrators will easily avoid legal responsibility because the formulation of the article cannot be used as a basis for prosecuting perpetrators who violate the law.   Furthermore, the Constitutional Court stated that the material content of Article 10 and Article 114 of the Copyright Law is normatively very limited and narrow because it only emphasizes the Management of Trading Places, which are a venue for selling and/or duplicating goods resulting from violations of Copyright and/or Related Rights, despite their speed and sophistication. Information technology has created an extensive space for interaction or mass communication (between people or society) through the provision of digital service platforms, namely in the form of sharing-app, short-video creation…