The Central Jakarta Commercial Court has invalidated the DR.WU Trademark registration held by an Indonesian company after finding that the mark was identical in its entirety to the original DR.WU Trademark and had been registered in bad faith. The ruling came despite the Indonesian company filing its Trademark application before the legitimate Trademark owner from Taiwan. How did the dispute unfold, and why did the Court ultimately rule in favor of the Taiwanese company?
In Decision No. 24/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2026/PN Niaga Jkt Pst, dated September 8, 2026, the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court granted all claims brought by DR. WU Skincare Co., Ltd., a Taiwan-based company, against PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna over the registration of the DR.WU Trademark in Indonesia.
In this case, the Court reaffirmed that an earlier Trademark filing in Indonesia does not automatically override another party’s legitimate rights, particularly where evidence shows the registration was made in bad faith.
How the Dispute Began: Two Companies, One Trademark: DR.WU
DR.WU is a skincare brand developed by Taiwan-based DR. WU Skincare Co., Ltd., established in 2003 by dermatologist Dr. Yin-Chin Wu and his son, Wu, I-JU (Eric Wu).
The company has held Trademark registrations for DR.WU in Taiwan since 2005, including for products in Class 3. Over the years, the DR.WU Trademark has also secured protection in various jurisdictions, including Singapore, Hong Kong, the United States, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia.
However, complications arose when the company sought to extend its Trademark protection to Indonesia.
It emerged that PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna had already filed an application to register the DR.WU Trademark in Indonesia on October 22, 2018, covering cosmetics and skincare products in the same class (Class 3).
The application subsequently proceeded to registration on May 20, 2020, under Registration No. IDM000754032.
Meanwhile, DR. WU Skincare Co., Ltd. held an Indonesian Trademark registration for DR.WU with a filing date of February 21, 2019, which was eventually registered on February 19, 2026, under Registration No. IDM001429929, covering Classes 3 and 5.
Therefore, when comparing the Indonesian filing dates alone, PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna had indeed filed its application first. However, this was not the sole determining factor in establishing which party was legally entitled to the DR.WU Trademark in Indonesia.
Why Did DR.WU Taiwan File a Lawsuit?
On March 12, 2026, DR. WU Skincare Co., Ltd. appointed AFFA Intellectual Property Rights as its legal counsel to file a Trademark invalidation lawsuit challenging the DR.WU registration held by PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna.
The Directorate of Trademarks and Geographical Indications under the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) was also named as a Co-Defendant for the purpose of implementing the Court’s decision.
The lawsuit was primarily based on two legal grounds:
- Substantial Similarity or Identity in Its Entirety
The Plaintiff argued that the DR.WU Trademark registered by PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna incorporated exactly the same letters and punctuation as the Plaintiff’s Trademark.
The similarities extended to the visual appearance, spelling, and pronunciation of the mark, namely DR.WU.
Furthermore, both Trademarks covered closely related goods, particularly cosmetics and skincare products in Class 3.
According to the Plaintiff, these circumstances were likely to cause consumer confusion regarding the commercial origin of products bearing the DR.WU Trademark.
This argument was based on Article 21(1) of Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. - Bad Faith in Trademark Registration
The Plaintiff further alleged that PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna had reason to be suspected of copying or imitating the DR.WU Trademark, which had previously been used and registered in several countries.
One of the key grounds supporting this argument was DR.WU’s international Trademark registration history, which substantially predated the Defendant’s Indonesian Trademark application.
The Plaintiff maintained that the identical Trademark and its use for similar goods were not coincidental but indicated an attempt to capitalize on the identity and reputation of a Trademark established by another party.
This argument relied on Article 21(3) of the Trademark and Geographical Indications Law, which provides for the refusal of Trademark applications filed by applicants acting in bad faith.
DGIP’s Objection: The Lawsuit Was Allegedly Time-Barred
One of the most significant aspects of this case arose from the response submitted by DGIP in its capacity as Co-Defendant.
During the proceedings, PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna failed to appear before the Court despite having been duly and properly summoned. DGIP, meanwhile, submitted its response and documentary evidence in support of its arguments concerning the disputed Trademark registration.
DGIP raised an objection that the Trademark invalidation lawsuit had been filed beyond the statutory time limit.
According to DGIP, PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna’s Trademark had been registered since May 20, 2020, whereas the lawsuit was not filed until March 12, 2026.
In other words, the lawsuit was initiated almost six years after the Trademark registration date.
DGIP relied on Article 77(1) of the Trademark and Geographical Indications Law, which establishes a five-year limitation period for filing a Trademark invalidation lawsuit, calculated from the registration date.
DGIP also argued that the Defendant’s Trademark had undergone formalities examination, publication, and substantive examination before the registration certificate was issued.
According to DGIP, the examination process had already addressed both Trademark similarity and the applicant’s good faith. DGIP further stated that no opposition had been filed during the publication period.
On these grounds, DGIP requested that the lawsuit be declared inadmissible or dismissed.
This raised a critical legal question: can a Trademark registration that has existed for more than five years still be invalidated?
The Court’s Reasoning: Bad Faith Allows Trademark Invalidation Without a Time Limit
The Panel of Judges rejected the objection based on the statutory limitation period. The Court relied on Article 77(2) of the Trademark and Geographical Indications Law, which allows Trademark invalidation lawsuits to be filed without any time limitation where bad faith and/or certain other grounds specified under the law are involved.
The Panel noted that the Plaintiff had expressly alleged bad faith in the Defendant’s registration of the DR.WU Trademark and had requested a judicial declaration to that effect.
Accordingly, the lawsuit could not simply be considered time-barred merely because the disputed Trademark had been registered for more than five years.
This reasoning is particularly significant because it demonstrates that the five-year statutory limitation period does not provide absolute protection for every Trademark registration.
However, it is important to emphasize that this exception must be supported by a relevant legal basis. Allegations of bad faith must still be substantiated through evidence during the Court’s examination of the merits of the case.
How Did DR.WU Taiwan Establish Its Rights?
During the proceedings, the Plaintiff submitted 32 pieces of documentary evidence, while the Co-Defendant submitted only two. Neither party presented witnesses or expert testimony.
The Plaintiff’s evidence included Trademark registration certificates from various jurisdictions, Indonesian Trademark registration documents, and evidence demonstrating the use and promotion of the DR.WU Trademark.
Three key sets of facts emerged from this evidence and played an important role in the Panel of Judges’ considerations.
- DR.WU Had Been Registered in Multiple Jurisdictions Before 2018
The registration documents established that the DR.WU Trademark had been protected in Taiwan since 2005.
In addition to Taiwan, the Panel specifically highlighted earlier Trademark registrations in the United States, Hong Kong, and Singapore.
This history demonstrated that DR.WU was not a newly established Trademark that emerged only after PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna filed its Indonesian application. - The Two Trademarks Were Identical in Their Entirety
The Panel then compared the appearance and composition of the Trademarks used by each party.
The comparison established that both marks consisted of DR.WU, with identical visual elements, letter arrangements, and pronunciation.
Moreover, the goods covered by the Trademarks were directly related to cosmetics and skincare products.
In its decision, the Panel concluded that the Defendant’s registered Trademark was identical in its entirety, rather than merely substantially similar, to the Plaintiff’s Trademark. - DR.WU’s Reputation Had Been Established Through Use and Promotion
The Panel also considered evidence of the Plaintiff’s continuous Trademark use, product marketing, and promotional activities.
Based on exhibits P-17 through P-28, the Panel found that the Plaintiff had consistently used its Trademark and extensively promoted its products to establish brand recognition and reputation.
These facts reinforced the finding that the DR.WU Trademark had already existed and been used before the Defendant registered the mark in Indonesia.
Why Did the Court Find Bad Faith?
After establishing that the two Trademarks were identical in their entirety, the Panel of Judges examined whether PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna had acted in bad faith when registering the Trademark.
In its reasoning, the Panel observed that access to information through the internet enables businesses to identify Trademarks that have already been registered and used in other countries.
The Panel went further, finding it difficult to accept that a business operating in the same industry would have been unaware of the DR.WU Trademark, which had previously been registered in Taiwan and several other jurisdictions.
The Court assessed this circumstance alongside the identical nature of the Trademarks, the similarity of the goods, and the evidence of DR.WU’s prior international registrations and use.
Based on these combined findings, the Panel concluded that the Defendant’s registration constituted an act of bad faith intended to free-ride on the reputation of the Plaintiff’s Trademark.
This was the decisive issue in the case: the Court did not merely consider which party had filed its Trademark application first in Indonesia. It also examined the Trademark’s origins, history of use, and the intentions of the party seeking registration.
Although the Defendant had an earlier Indonesian filing date, that fact was insufficient to uphold its registration once the Panel established that the application had been filed in bad faith.
Court Decision: PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna’s DR.WU Trademark Registration Invalidated
On September 8, 2026, the Panel of Judges of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court granted all claims brought by DR. WU Skincare Co., Ltd.
The key orders contained in the Court’s decision were as follows:
- Rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Co-Defendant.
- Declared DR. WU Skincare Co., Ltd. the owner and rights holder of the DR.WU Trademark under Registration No. IDM001429929, with a filing date of February 21, 2019, covering Classes 3 and 5.
- Declared that the DR.WU Trademark registered by PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna under Registration No. IDM000754032 was identical in its entirety to the Plaintiff’s Trademark.
- Declared that PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna’s registration of the DR.WU Trademark had been made in bad faith.
- Declared the DR.WU Trademark registration in the name of PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna invalid.
- Ordered DGIP to remove the disputed Trademark from the Trademark Register and publish the invalidation in the Official Trademark Gazette.
- Ordered the Registrar of the Commercial Court to transmit the decision to the Trademark Office.
- Ordered the Defendant to pay court costs amounting to IDR 4,986,000.
According to the information contained in the official copy of the decision issued on October 15, 2026, no party filed a cassation appeal within the prescribed statutory period.
Accordingly, as confirmed by the Court in that document, the decision has become final and legally binding (inkracht van gewijsde).
Key Takeaways from the DR.WU Trademark Dispute
This case provides several important lessons concerning Trademark protection in Indonesia.
- The First-to-File Principle Does Not Provide Absolute Protection
Indonesia’s Trademark registration system places significant importance on filing priority. However, rights arising from registration may still be challenged where valid grounds for invalidation exist, including bad faith. - International Trademark Registrations Can Serve as Important Evidence in Disputes
DR.WU’s Trademark registrations in Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the United States helped establish that the Trademark existed before the Defendant filed its Indonesian application. Nevertheless, foreign Trademark registrations do not automatically confer exclusive Trademark rights in Indonesia. - Trademark Registrations Older Than Five Years Are Not Necessarily Immune from Legal Challenges
Article 77(2) allows Trademark invalidation actions to be brought without a time limitation under certain circumstances, including where bad faith is established. - Substantive Examination and Registration Certificates Do Not Guarantee That a Trademark Registration Cannot Be Invalidated
In this case, the Court invalidated a Trademark registration previously approved by DGIP after examining the evidence and legal arguments presented during the proceedings. - Documentation of Trademark Use and Promotion Has Significant Evidentiary Value
Trademark registration certificates are not the only documents relevant to a dispute. Evidence of marketing activities and Trademark use can help establish the history and reputation of a Trademark when legal conflicts arise.
The DR.WU Trademark dispute demonstrates that Trademark enforcement in Indonesia goes beyond determining which party filed its application first.
Indonesian courts may also consider the history of Trademark ownership, registrations in other jurisdictions, Trademark similarity, the nature of the goods, prior use, reputation, and the good faith of the party obtaining registration.
In this case, although PT Adhi Bintang Sempurna filed its Indonesian Trademark application before the Taiwanese company, the Court ultimately invalidated its registration after finding that the Trademark was identical in its entirety to the Plaintiff’s mark and had been registered in bad faith.
The decision serves as an important reminder to both domestic and international businesses that a Trademark registration certificate is a vital instrument of legal protection, but the validity of the registration may still be challenged where there are legitimate grounds to question its compliance with applicable Trademark laws and the rights of other parties.
Should you require further information or legal assistance regarding Trademark invalidation involving bad-faith registrations in Indonesia, contact AFFA Intellectual Property Rights through any of the channels below and receive a FREE 15-minute consultation:
📩 E-Mail : [email protected]
📳 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812
💬 WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889
About AFFA:
Established in 1999, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights is an Indonesia-based boutique IP law firm serving international brands and innovators, offering full-service support—from prosecution and licensing to enforcement and commercialization—in Indonesia’s dynamic IP landscape. Our firm is widely recognized for its excellence, with accolades including “Best Boutique Law Firm in Indonesia” and “IP Enforcement Firm” at the Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025 by Asia Business Law Journal, as well as being listed as a “Recommended Firm 2024 — Indonesia” by WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals.
