International IP Index 2024: Indonesia to catch up on IP Commercialization - AFFA IPR

International IP Index 2024: Indonesia to Catch Up on IP Commercialization

Intellectual Property1 Comment

Every year, the United States Chamber of Commerce releases the “International Intellectual Property Index,” which ranks countries worldwide based on their growth in Intellectual Property, commercialization of Intellectual Property assets, law enforcement, system efficiency, and membership and ratification of international treaties. This year, Indonesia is ranked 49th out of 55 countries, or 7th from the bottom. What caused it?   The International Intellectual Property (IP) Index is a comprehensive assessment of the intellectual property framework of countries worldwide. It indirectly shows a country’s policies in encouraging innovation, creativity, economic growth, and wider investment opportunities.   Intellectual Property Becomes an Important Decision for Investment   Intellectual Property as an asset must be recognized. Today’s large companies are at the forefront thanks to their Intellectual Property assets. Technology companies such as Tesla, Apple, Microsoft, and even Walt Disney became rich thanks to the Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks, Industrial Designs, and Trade Secrets they owned. Therefore, when a country cannot provide a climate conducive to protecting Intellectual Property (IP), it is considered to have failed to protect the wealth of its citizens and its business ecosystem. If this is the case, it makes sense that investment in the lowest-rank countries will be smaller than in the upper-rank countries.   The International IP Index published by the United States Chamber of Commerce was first published in 2012. At that time, it only described the performance of 11 countries: the United States, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, India, England, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, and Russia. The 12th edition, released in February 2024, has experienced an increase from the previous year, covering 53 countries. This year’s 55 countries have covered over 90% of the world economy’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), so it is hoped to represent the condition of world IP.   From Southeast Asian countries, the IP Index maps the performance of Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia as samples. Unfortunately, Indonesia is indeed the lowest in Southeast Asia.   The following is the overall ranking of the 2024 International IP Index:   1 United States 95,48% 29 Peru 49,82% 2 United Kingdom 94,12% 30 Chile 49,72% 3 France 93,12% 31 Colombia 48,84% 4 Germany 92,46% 32 Saudi Arabia 48,42% 5 Sweden 92,12% 33 Brazil 46,52% 6 Japan 91,26% 34 United Arab Emirates 46,00% 7 The Netherlands 91,24% 35 Jordan 44,70%  8 Ireland 89,38% 36 Honduras 42,16% 9 Spainl 86,44% 37 Philippines 41,58%  10 Switzerland 85,98% 38 Brunei 41,08%  11 South Korea 84,94% 39 Ghana 40,88%  12 Singapore 84,92%  40 Vietnam 40,76% 13 Italy 83,90% 41 Ukraine 40,30%  14 Australia 80,70% 42 India 38,64% 15 Hungary 76,90% 43 Thailand 38,28%  16 Canada 76,22% 44 Kenya 37,88% 17 Israel 72,74% 45 South Africa 37,28%  18 Greece 71,42% 46 Argentina 37,00% 19 Poland 70,74% 47 Nigeria 36,34%  20 New Zealand 69,36% 48 Egypt 33,86% 21 Taiwan 67,34% 49 Indonesia 30,40% 22 Morocco 62,76% 50 Ecuador 29,58% 23 Mexico 59,98% 51 Kuwait 28,42% 24 China 57,86% 52 Pakistan 27,42% 25 Dominican Republic 55,30% 53 Algeria 26,36% 26 Costa Rika 55,04% 54 Russia 25,00% 27 Malaysia 53,44% 55 Venezuela 14,10% 28 Turkiye 51,04%   Why is Indonesia’s Ranking Low?   Indonesia’s performance in the index fell 0.02% from the previous year but remained at the same rank.   Indonesia’s Performance based on Indicators Source: 2024 International IP Index – U.S. Chamber of Commerce   From the graph above, it can be seen that the number of Patents owned by Indonesia still needs to be stronger, unable to keep up with the growth of Copyrights, Trademarks, and Industrial Designs. Among all the IPs used as indicators, only Copyright is closest to the Asian average performance.   For other indicators, Indonesia is quite good regarding system efficiency but very low in IP asset commercialization. It is the country with the lowest score for this indicator, recorded at only 4.17%. It is below Ecuador, Venezuela, Ghana, Kenya, Russia, and even Vietnam.   Indonesia’s ranking based on the Commercialization of IP Asset Indicator Source: 2024 International IP Index – U.S. Chamber of Commerce   The commercialization of IP Assets is an indicator that measures the presence of barriers and incentives for the commercialization and licensing of IP assets. In more detail, this indicator includes barriers to technology transfer, registration and disclosure requirements of licensing agreements, direct government intervention in setting licensing terms, and the existence of tax incentives for the creation and commercialization of IP assets.   In particular, the United States Chamber of Commerce assesses that Presidential Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 77 of 2020 concerning Procedures for Implementing Patents by the Government has gone far beyond the stated goals and circumstances for the issuing of compulsory licenses under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, minimum standards for the regulation by national governments of different forms of IP as applied to nationals of other World Trade Organization (WTO) member nations. This presidential regulation is considered to hinder the transfer of technology on Patents, and Biopharmaceutical patentability standards are outside international norms.   However, Indonesia is generally at the bottom of the ranking because its commercialization foundation still needs to be stronger. Public awareness of IP still needs to improve; the knowledge of IP as an asset is minimal. There are still many people who do not appreciate IPs, not because they cannot afford to buy, but because the tendency to enjoy the IPs without paying still exists. Copyright growth is high, but the market hopes these works can be enjoyed for free. As a result, creators scream, and their productivity decreases. This also causes the innovation climate in Indonesia is not good. Because the public still needs to consider innovation to be something that can be commercialized, the growth of Patents from Indonesia is low. dapat dikomersialisasikan, pertumbuhan Paten dari Indonesia pun rendah. To change this mentality, more than education is needed; concrete steps from the government and private sectors are needed to give the highest appreciation to every existing IPs from within and outside the…

Details
AFFA Represents Inner Mongolia Kunming Cigarette Limited Liability Company for a Successful Bad-Faith Trademark Invalidation in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

AFFA Represents Inner Mongolia Kunming Cigarette Limited Liability Company for a Successful Bad-Faith Trademark Invalidation in Indonesia

Trademark1 Comment

On April 25 2024, the Panel of Judges at the Central Jakarta District Court issued a favourable decision for Inner Mongolia Kunming Cigarette Limited Liability Company to invalidate the “DONGCHONGXIACAO” Trademark under registration number IDM000791780 which had been registered in bad faith since May 2018 in Indonesia.   “DONGCHONGXIACAO” is a Trademark that has been registered and made famous by Inner Mongolia Kunming Cigarette Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as the “company”) in China since 2017, as well as in several other countries including Pakistan, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Kingdom. In 2021, the company decided to apply for Trademark registration with application number DID2021069519 in Indonesia. However, the application was rejected by Trademark Office (DGIP) in 2022 on the grounds that there were substantial similarities with the prior Trademark “DONGCHONGXIACAO” which was registered with number IDM000791780 in the same class, namely class 34.   In response to this rejection, Inner Mongolia Kunming Cigarette Limited Liability Company, which appointed AFFA Intellectual Property Rights, decided to file an act for invalidation of this Trademark. This is done considering that the company believed that the prior Mark “DONGCHONGXIACAO” with registration number IDM000791780 was applied for and registered by a party who did not have the rights to the Trademark nor any legitimate reason to own it, considering that the company has earlier registrations of the same Trademark in other countries which were  submitted before the date of the Trademark application of the prior Mark.   Apart from being registered and marketed in various countries around the world, the arguments in this action were based on the following 4 (four) points::   Similarities in visual elements   Notes Plaintiff’s Trademark Defendant’s Trademark Similarities in Words DONG CHONG XIA CAO DONGCHONGXIACAO Similarities in Writing Dong Chong Xia Cao DONGCHONGXIACAO Similarities in Word Order D-o-n-g-C-h-o-n-g-X-i-a-C-a-o D-O-N-G-C-H-O-N-G-X-I-A-C-A-O Conclusion The Defendant’s Trademark can create an impression that confuses the public, so the Trademark market can think that the Trademark is the Client’s Mark.   Similarities in pronunciation   Notes Plaintiff’s Trademark Defendant’s Trademark Similarities in essence in Trademark Pronunciation dong-chong-xia-cao dong-chong-xia-cao   Similarities in the goods covered in Class 34 They have similarities and close relationships, starting from the function, intended use, and origin of the goods, as well as similarities in marketing channels/target markets, so it is feared that they have the potential to confuse consumers.   Plaintiff’s Trademark Defendant’s Trademark DONGCHONGXIACAO Application Number DID2023116953 – Class 34 Registered Number IDM000791780 – Class 34 Type of Goods: “Tobacco powder; shredded tobacco; cigar; small cigars; cigarette; electronic cigarettes; cigarettes containing tobacco substitutes, not for medical purposes; tobacco; chewing tobacco; tobacco to snort.” Type of Goods: “Tobacco and processed tobacco products, including smoking tobacco, tobacco pipes, cigars and cigarettes, smokers’ goods, including smoking pipes and lighters, electronic cigarettes, non-metal cigarette ash containers, cigarette boxes, gas cylinders for cigar lighters, cigarillos (small cigars), tobacco for self-rolling cigarettes, chewing tobacco, snuff tobacco, kretek, betel tobacco, heated tobacco products, devices electronics and parts thereof for heating cigarettes or tobacco to release nicotine-containing aerosols for inhalation, liquid nicotine solutions for use in electronic cigarettes, cigarette paper, cigarette tubes, cigarette filters, tobacco containers, pouch equipment for rolling cigarettes.”   The trademark invalidation action that was officially filed was registered on December 18, 2024, at the Registrar’s Office of the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court, with the Trademark Office/Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) was also included as a co-defendant. Through a series of hearings,, the Panel of Judges at the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court finally issued a favourable decision for the plaintiff. The decision was based on the following considerations:   “The owner of an unregistered Trademark can file an action as intended in paragraph (1) after submitting an Application to the Minister,” as regulated in Article 76 paragraph (2) of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications (Trademark Law) and the Plaintiff has done this prior to the submission of the suit to the Court of Commerce. The Trademark Invalidation Action has been appropriately and properly filed through the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court, as regulated in Article 85 paragraph (2) of the Trademark Law; The Panel of Judges has carefully examined that the Defendant’s Trademark is substantially similar to the Client’s Trademark, which was previously registered in China on 28 August 2017. Both the sound of the speech, the arrangement of the letters, and the words used in the word DONGCHONGXIACAO Trademarks, according to the panel of judges, have very close similarities, so it is appropriate that the type of goods owned by the Plaintiff’s mark and the Defendant’s mark can be considered as a Trademark which is substantially similar in the type of goods applied for and also registered; Defendant should not use and/or apply for registration of a Trademark which is similar in essence to Plaintiff’s Trademark because there are many other words or arrangements of words that the Defendant can create and use as a Trademark without having to imitate and/or plagiarize the Plaintiff’s Trademark; The application for registration of the Trademark submitted by the Defendant is not an application that can be registered as intended in Article 21 paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law, or other words, the application for registration of the DONGCHONGXIACAO Trademark should be rejected by the Co-Defendant (DGIP) because the Trademark registered by the Defendant is the result of imitation and/or plagiarism of the Plaintiff’s Trademark which already existed and was previously registered in China; Defendant never appeared at the trial, even though they had been summoned legally and properly; this also proves that the Defendant did not refute the Plaintiff’s arguments, which were that the registered Trademark was substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s mark, which had previously existed and was registered earlier in China, and that the Defendant registered the Trademark in bad faith.   You might also want to read: A Win for the “WIN” – AFFA Represents Hongyunhonghe Tobacco (Group) Co. Ltd. for…

Details
A Win for the WIN - AFFA Represents Hongyunhonghe Tobacco for a Successful Trademark Non-Use Cancellation in Indonesia

A Win for the “WIN” – AFFA Represents Hongyunhonghe Tobacco (Group) Co. Ltd. for a Successful Trademark Non-Use Cancellation in Indonesia

Event, Intellectual Property, Trademark

When your Trademark Registration application is rejected in Indonesia, it is often due to the existence of another prior Trademark with the same elements that have been registered in the same class with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). Since Indonesia applies the first-to-file principle, if you register the same Trademark after another Trademark that has been filed or registered earlier, you must consider alternative options to prevent a potential rejection by the DGIP.   The dilemma usually arises when there is an identical prior Trademark that gets in the way of a successful registration, but you have no other option but to still keep using the identical Trademark for business purposes in Indonesia. At times, rebranding exercise costs more than any potential legal action that may be required to cancel a prior Mark due to non-use. In this scenario, the latter should be considered.   As stated in Article 74 of the Trademark and Geographical Indications Law (Trademark Law), an interested third party can apply for cancellation of a registered Trademark in the form of attack legally on the grounds of non-use to the Court of Commerce if the Mark has not been used for trade in goods and/or services for 3 (three) consecutive years from the date of registration or last use.   Therefore, if we can prove that the Trademark is genuinely not in use after a thorough investigation, the Court of Commer can cancel a registered Trademark upon request of an interested third party.   Since 2022, AFFA has been trusted by Hongyunhonghe Tobacco (Group) Co. Ltd., which originates from the People’s Republic of China to manage its Intellectual Property in Indonesia, one of which is the WIN Trademark in class 34 which includes types of cigarette filters, filters for cigarettes, lighters, liquid solutions for use in electronic cigarettes, lighters for smokers, flavorings other than oil essentials for tobacco, cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, snuff and hand-rolling tobacco.   However, based on initial searches, there is already a WIN Trademark under registration no. IDM000030697 in the same class owned by PT Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company (STTC)  of North Sumatra, Indonesia. Under normal conditions, of course, the client’s chance to register WIN is low because it will be rejected as regulated in Article 21 paragraph (1) letter (a) of the Trademark Law, which states that a Trademark application is rejected if the Trademark has similarities in essence or its entirety with the registered Trademark owned by the other party for similar goods and/or services.   Previously, the WIN Trademark of Hongyunhonghe Tobacco had been registered in China, the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, and even Singapore since 2009. This fact alone already constitutes the definition of “an interested party” as regulated by Article 74 of the Trademark Law.   After the investigation process was carried out, it was found that STTC had not used the Trademark for 3 consecutive years from the date of registration or from the date of last use. Consequently, the petition for cancellation was filed to the Commercial Court – Central Jakarta District Court on September 14, 2023, as regulated in Article 76 paragraph (1) of the Trademark Law. Unfortunately, the Court of Commerce decided to reject the petition. Therefore, the next step was to file a cassation to the Supreme Court on September 27, 2023.   The Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia finally decided that the Central Jakarta District Court had misapplied the law, granted our cassation request on January 25, 2024, while canceling the Commercial Court’s decision, and asked DGIP to register the cancellation of the WIN Trademark registration from the General Register of Trademarks and announce it in the Official Trademark Gazette.    You might also want to read: AFFA Represents Trek Bicycle to Win a Trademark Non-Use Cancellation Action in Indonesia This success story is a testament that with thorough preparation and investigation, a non-use cancellation action is possible in Indonesia. Should you need more information about Trademark registration and protection in Indonesia or abroad, please email us at [email protected].

Details
AFFA Represents Trek Bicycle to Win a Trademark Non-Use Cancellation Action in Indonesia

AFFA Represents Trek Bicycle to Win a Trademark Non-Use Cancellation Action in Indonesia

Event, Trademark2 Comments

Since mid-2023, AFFA has been entrusted with handling disputes over the Marlin, Trademark owned by Trek Bicycle Corporation, headquartered in Waterloo, United States. Marlin is Trek’s Trademark for its flagship mountain bike frame.    In its home country, Marlin has been used since 1994 and was registered in 1998 at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). However, when it was submitted for registration in 2021 via the Madrid Protocol addressed to Indonesia, this Mark was rejected by the Directorate General Intellectual Property (DGIP) as the Trademark Office in Indonesia because it was deemed to have similarities in its essence or its entirety with the registered identical Prior Mark owned by PT Astra Honda Motor since November 2006, and the protection period would have ended in November 2026.   Based on research conducted by independent investigators, it turned out that PT Astra Honda Motor had never used this Trademark for 3 (three) consecutive years from the date of registration or from the date of last use. Due to this fact, a petition to cancel the Marlin Trademark due to non-use was filed as regulated in Article 74 paragraph (1) of the Trademark and Geographical Indications Law (Trademark Law).   Despite an unfavorable decision at the Court of Commerce level, the team at AFFA filed a cassation to the Supreme Court on December 6 and submitted a cassation memo on December 19, 2023. It was finally decided in a deliberation meeting of the Panel of Judges on Tuesday, March 19, 2024, that the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court had misapplied the law and ordered the DGIP to remove the Marlin Trademark under the name of PT Astra Honda Motor.   The most important factor is that the Trademark has not been used in the last 3 (three) years based on the non-use investigation report submitted to the Court of Commerce. Apart from that, the similarity in essence or its entirety, an element of Trademark cancellation, does not need to be explained in the petition. Moreover, it is supported by the fact that the Cassation Respondent/Defendant never appeared at the hearings, even though they had been summoned 3 (three) times. Another helpful point that enhanced the chance of obtaining a favorable decision is the fact that Trek Bicycle Corporation also has registrations for the same Mark in various countries, such as Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras and others.    Contrary to the popular belief that non-use cancellations in Indonesia are impossible, this decision by the Supreme Court is a proof that non-use cancellations are possible, provided that the plaintiff comes prepared with non-use investigation report and ample additional evidence which suggest legitimate interests in the same Mark. Should you need more information about registering your Trademark in Indonesia or abroad, do not hesitate to email us at [email protected].

Details
Athlete and Inventor at Once - Why Not? - AFFA IPR

Athlete and Inventor at Once – Why Not?

Patent, Intellectual Property

Professional athletes often understand what needs to be done to improve their performance, whether modifying existing equipment or creating something new. So, their position is not just to use the latest technology created by sponsors but to create their own technology according to their needs. This is also useful for athletes and other sportsmen, including fans who want to experience the sensation.   In the history of sports technology development, dozens of athletes have been involved in the innovation process and registered as inventors in various countries. The following five names could be an inspiration for you: Tony Finau This 6 PGA Tour winner has a unique habit when using his putter. He often uses the back of the club to hit the ball from close range. He even provides an arrow with a certain tilt angle on his Ping PLD Anser 2D putter, making his aim more accurate. Seeing this inappropriate use certainly made the Ping producer feel the need to “talk” with Tony to get feedback. The results led to the creation of a putter prototype that provides the sensation of being hit from behind but still has an attractive design that does not violate the rules.   “Compact Putter Head” (U.S. #11.911.670 B2) Finally, since February 2024, Tony Finau’s name was officially included as the inventor of the Patent Utility for Ping’s “Compact Putter Head” (U.S. #11,911,670 B2), along with Tony Serrano (Ping Design Engineer) and John A. Solheim (Ping President). George Grant A century and a half ago, the sport of golf did not yet know the term “golf tee” or a tool for placing the ball at the starting point of the shot. Uneven sand or grass conditions were harsh and interfered with hitting accuracy until the first African-American avid golfer from Harvard registered the first “Golf-Tee” (U.S. #638,920 A) in America in 1899. “Golf-Tee” (U.S. #638.920 A) Unfortunately, Grant’s wooden tee is not commercialized, so only a few people know about it and use it. Until decades later, William Lowell, who also worked as a dentist, appeared, collaborating with Spalding to produce and promote the “Reddy Tee,” a wooden tee like Grant’s but painted red. Stanley Honey As a Sailing sports navigator since 1992, he has mastered various classes, from Yacht to Catamaran, complete with several fastest finish records, including winning the Newport Bermuda Race in 2022. Stanley, who has a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University, uses the knowledge gained on campus to maximize his sporting activities. Since 2003, he has had a Patent for “Locating an Object Using GPS with Additional Data” (U.S. #657,584 B2). “Electromagnetic Transmitting Hockey Puck” (U.S. #5.564.698 A) He also became acquainted with officials from this sport from leading technology and media companies, including Atari, News Corp, and Fox Corporation. Until 1998, Stanley was trusted to lead Sportvision, a technology company tasked with improving the audience’s experience watching various sports broadcasts on News Corp and Fox. “Electromagnetic Transmitting Hockey Puck” (U.S. #5,564,698 A), which allows TV viewers at home to see more clearly the hockey puck in play, “System for Determining Information about a Golf Club and/or a Golf Ball” (U.S. #6,456 .232 B1) which can show the speed of the ball on the viewer’s screen, and the “System for Enhancing the Television Presentation of an Object at a Sporting Event” (U.S. 5,912,700 A) which allows the viewer to receive real-time information from changes in the sequence of vehicles on racing. Of his total of 30 Patents, eight are related to navigation design systems, while the rest are related to improving the experience of watching sporting events. Charles Smith After retiring, the former National Basketball Association (NBA) player from 1988-1988 was active in the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) Foundation, advising retired basketball players who wanted to change professions to other fields. In 1998, Smith founded New Media Technology Corp., the first company to develop and patent a customizable video ingest application. “System and Method for Computer-Assisted Manual and Automatic Logging of Time-Based Media” (U.S. #8.060.515 B2) This invention, called “System and Method for Computer-Assisted Manual and Automatic Logging of Time-Based Media” (U.S. #8,060,515 B2), makes it easier to provide virtual consultations to everyone who needs them, with limited bandwidth. Smith said that his experience as a player and coach is beneficial in giving these virtual consultations, especially in the post-pandemic era, when people trust the input of a “coach” more than their boss. Van Phillips Phillips lost both legs at the age of 21 in a 1976 water skiing accident. However, he became even more enthusiastic about completing his studies as a Biomedical Design Engineer at the Utah University, United States, and founded his own company, Flex-Foot Incorporated, in 1984. “Prosthetic Energy Storing and Releasing Apparatus and Methods” (U.S. #20.210.259.857 A1) From there, several vital inventions were born, one of which was a light and flexible artificial leg made from carbon fiber, which foreign athletes widely used to excel in the prestigious Summer Paralympics. This Patent, called “Attachment Construction for Prosthesis” (WO #9,318,723 A1), was then developed to give birth to dozens of other Patent derivatives that brought him royalty income.   Whatever job you are in now, you may find a better way to make it easier. If it turns out to be unique, has never existed before, and can also be helpful for many people, immediately register it as a Patent to get more protection and benefits!   Should you need further information about Patent registration in Indonesia and abroad, don’t hesitate to email us at [email protected].

Details
Kylian Mbappe has Trademarked His Iconic Goal Celebration - Why is it Possible? - AFFA IPR

Kylian Mbappé has Trademarked His Iconic Goal Celebration – Why is it Possible?

Intellectual Property, Trademark1 Comment

Since 2017, Kylian Mbappé has contributed 170+ goals for the Paris Saint-Germain football club. Since then, Mbappé has introduced a celebration pose with crossed arms clamped in his armpits after he scores. Apparently, the pose was registered as a Trademark in the same year and will be protected at least until August 2027.   In theory, since 2008, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has recognized the existence of ‘New Types of Marks,’ which divides Trademarks into two types, namely Visible and Non-Visible. For Visible Marks, apart from the various commonly recognized Marks such as names, logos, and holograms, Motion or Multimedia Signs, Position Marks, and Gesture Marks are also recognized. Therefore, this celebratory pose, which includes gestures, can indeed be registered as a Trademark. Source: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)   As a logo, there is a classification system that regulates it to make applications more accessible, as well as providing ample opportunity for each person or company logo to be registered in various appropriate class categories, thereby minimizing monopolistic practices. The classification system is the Vienna Class, which divides logos into 29 categories, 144 divisions, 775 main sections, and 1,112 auxiliary sections. Mbappé’s celebration pose is included in Vienna Class 2.1.8 which includes logos for “Acrobats, athletes, dancers, jugglers, nude men, men practising sports (except those already included in Vienna Classes 2.1.2, 2.1.12, 2.1.14, 2.1.20 and 2.1.21).”   It should be noted that the Indonesian Trademark Office (DGIP) has not adopted the Vienna Class for Figurative Mark, but this does not mean that the Mark cannot be registered in Indonesia. Please take a look at the explanation at the end of this article.   Why Does It Need to be Trademarked?   From the start, Mbappé understood that his unique pose could be registered as a Trademark. Dozens of years earlier, David Beckham, the legendary wing midfielder from Manchester United, had registered his cross-passing pose as a Trademark. The difference is that the logo registered by Beckham is a figure that resembles a human (Vienna Class 4.5.5), not a black-and-white photo of himself as registered by Mbappé. Source: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)   However, just like Beckham, Mbappé also hopes that this Trademark can be used commercially for various goods and/or services of his own. With global achievements and 113 million Instagram followers from all over the world, it is not difficult to imagine that whatever Mbappé sells, especially those with his unique celebration logo, will make a profit. Of course, this profit does not only come to Mbappé but also to manufacturers of clothes, textiles, toys, video games, umbrellas, bags, jewelry, perfume, cosmetics, and even toothbrushes who are interested in getting the license.   Negative Impact on the Athlete’s Image?   If a Trademark is already registered, commercial use of the mark becomes the exclusive right of the mark owner or another party who has officially obtained permission. So, suppose another party uses it without permission. In that case, a civil lawsuit can be filed in Indonesia, or criminal liability can be demanded, with a maximum fine of 2 (two) billion Rupiah or a maximum imprisonment of 5 (five) years.   From the perspective of the fan community, the size of this fine can be scary because a logo that was previously very proud, used as wallpaper on a cellphone, laptop, sticker on a vehicle, or poster in the work space could become incriminating evidence. Will Mbappé’s lawyers or legal team sue and imprison the Fans?   The answer is, of course, no. Because they will mainly pursue pirates who produce, distribute, or sell counterfeit products without permission, this effort is undoubtedly very positive for fans who are truly present to provide support to their athletes. Because the money spent will actually be income for the athletes, not put into the pockets of the pirates, it’s more expensive but legal, you get quality goods, and you’re prouder.   Other Athletes Who Have Done It, Too.   The practice of commercializing athletes’ profiles as Trademarks has been going on for a long time; for example, basketball player Michael Jordan, golfer Jack Nicklaus, and sprinter Usain Bolt are still loved by their fans. With the ownership of this celebration logo, Mbappé is recorded as having 7 registered Trademark variants at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), of which 1 is a Trademark bearing his name, 2 Trademarks contain his favorite slogan, 2 are his logo, and 2 more are a combination of logo and Mbappé’s name.   Lionel Messi (6 Marks) and Cristiano Ronaldo (5 Marks) are other footballers with many active registered Trademarks. However, when David Beckham was still active, he had more Trademarks. Namely, he had 8 registered Trademarks for the logo, name, and several variants of his name with a combination of his back numbers for various products and foundations that he owns. Unfortunately, currently, only one Trademark is still active: BECKHAM.   Can this Trademark be Registered in Indonesia? Referring to Article 1 point 1 of Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications (the Trademark Law), a Trademark is a sign that can be displayed graphically in the form of an image, logo, name, word, letter, number, color arrangement, in the form of 2 (two) dimensions and/or 3 (three) dimensions, sound, hologram, or a combination of 2 (two) or more of these elements to differentiate goods and/or services produced by individuals or legal entities in goods and/or services trading activities.   Referring to the Trademark definition, the Trademark submitted by Kylian Mbappé can also be registered in Indonesia as long as no identical or similar Mark has been previously submitted by another party, as regulated in Article 21 of the Trademark Law. Are you interested in registering your name or favorite pose as a Trademark in Indonesia or abroad? Contact us directly via email: [email protected].

Details
[Important Update] Japan Adopts Letter of Consent for Trademark Registration - AFFA IPR

[Important Update] Japan Adopts Letter of Consent for Trademark Registration

Trademark

The revised Japan Trademark Law will come into effect on April 1, 2024, introducing the “Letter of Consent” to overcome conflicts with earlier Trademark registrations.   However, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) recently announced that evidence must be provided in addition to a consent letter obtained from the earlier registrant when applying Article 4(4) of the Japan Trademark Law. This evidence must convince the JPO examiner that there is no likelihood of confusion between earlier and junior marks, not only at present but also in the future.   Article 4(4) of the Japan Trademark Law, which is newly introduced in April, states:   Trademark applications will not be rejected under Article 4(1)(xi) as long as the applicant obtains consent from the owner of the cited mark and it is unlikely to cause confusion with the cited owner or its exclusive or non-exclusive licensee when used on goods or services designated under the application.   Trademark Examination Guidelines for Article 4(4) Provides:   The requirement of being ‘unlikely to cause confusion’ must be satisfied at the time of the JPO examiner’s decision and in the future. To satisfy the requirement, the following factors will be assessed: Similarity between marks Recognition of mark Uniqueness of mark Significance of mark (House mark or product brand) Possibility of business expansion Relatedness of goods and service Consumers Trade practices involving actual use of mark Where both marks are identical and used on same goods and service, the examiner will find “likely to cause confusion” in principle. Applicant must provide evidence to demonstrate the unlikelihood of confusion based on the actual use of both marks. For example: Different color, font or combination between literal element and figurative element of respective mark Different position to place the mark or to accompany with other distinctive mark Difference in speific purpose or price of respective goods Different sales channel Different seasons to use the mark Different territory to use the mark Mutual covenants to take necessary actions if confusion is likely to occur between the marks An agreement between the parties to keep the present use or configuration of both marks in the future will be required to strengthen the unlikelihood of confusion in the future.   It is important to note that “Letter of Consent” is not available to Trademark applications filed with the JPO before April 1, 2024, even if they are pending examination.   Similarly, international registrations registered at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or subsequently designated to Japan before April 1, 2024, can’t use the consent. Should you need further information regarding Trademark registration in Japan or other countries, please email us at [email protected].

Details
[重要] 向印度尼西亚进口纺织品、箱包和鞋类需提供商标证书 - AFFA IPR

[重要] 向印度尼西亚进口纺织品、箱包和鞋类需提供商标证书

TrademarkLeave a comment

2024 年 3 月 10 日生效，旨在加强对商标的保护并控制市场上的产品质量，印度尼西亚共和国工业部 (Kemenperin) 开始实施对纺织品、箱包和鞋类产品进口有重大影响的新法规。2024 年第 5 号工业部长条例修正案第 23 (3) 条规定了这些产品进口的技术审查签发程序。   重大变化在于增加了进口商申请进口商识别号（API-U）时必须附加的以下文件：   印尼法律和人权部知识产权总局颁发的商标证书； 商标所有人向授权代表出具的许可协议、再许可和/或委任书的记录证明；以及 商标所有者或授权代表的进口委任书。   受影响产品 –   纺织品：纤维、长丝纱线和片状织物； –   纺织产品：地毯或其他纺织地板覆盖物、服装、服装配件和其他纺织成品； –   箱包：行李箱、钱包、书包、运动包、手提包和其他包袋； –   鞋类：鞋履、凉鞋和软皮鞋。   一般进口许可程序仍适用，贸易型进口企业需要获得一般进口商识别号（API-U）。申请程序包括一般进口商核查（VIU），随后由工业部进行技术审议（Pertek）。要获得 API-U，需要向贸易部提交 VIU 报告和 Pertek 结果。   对进口商的影响 对于尚未在印尼注册商标的进口商，这项新要求是重要提醒。 鉴于商标注册过程耗时较长（约 1-2 年），需要尽快与商标所有人沟通，以获得必要的证书，避免在获得进口许可证方面出现延误。   如需有关该法规的更多信息，包括如何在印尼注册商标，请随时通过电子邮件[email protected]与我们联系。

Details
A Complete Guide to Trademark Registration in Papua New Guinea - AFFA IPR

A Complete Guide to Trademark Registration in Papua New Guinea

Trademark

Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Indonesia are close neighbors but far away. You only need to travel by land to reach it, but after flying for more than five hours from Jakarta to Jayapura, Papua. However, just like the province of Papua, which borders it, PNG is a country with more inland areas than urban areas. Of the approximately 9 million population, less than 2 million live in urban areas. The rest are in remote areas dominated by coffee, chocolate, and palm oil plantations.   However, in 2022, recorded trade transactions between Indonesia and PNG will be among the highest in history, reaching USD 307 million or the equivalent of IDR 4.6 trillion. Indonesia has contributed a lot to road construction and student scholarships. PNG has a lot of potential, starting from its natural beauty, which is the source of many adventure tourism and eco-tourism destinations, to various renewable energy projects, ranging from hydro and solar power to geothermal energy, which, of course, requires a lot of supporting raw materials from extensive industry coverage.   If you see the immense business potential of developing PNG, you can immediately market your products and/or services there. But of course, remember to register your Trademark to get Trademark protection there.   Legal Basis for Trademark Protection in PNG   In PNG, the legal protection of Trademarks is regulated in the “Trade Marks Act, 1980 (Ch.385)” where the administration of registration and legislation is managed by the Intellectual Property Office of Papua New Guinea (IPOPNG), which is under the auspices of the Papua New Guinea Investment and Promotion Authority (IPA). However, IPOPNG has been part of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) since 1996, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Paris Convention since 1999, so you don’t need to worry about the legal standards used.   Registering your Trademark in PNG will protect it, especially if it conflicts with an identical or similar Trademark. The registered status also gives you exclusive rights to the goods and/or services you own, so your Trademark is protected from other parties who use it without permission and from prosecution if violations occur.   Types of Trademark That Can be Registered The definition of a Trademark in PNG is a sign used or proposed to be used in relation to goods or services to differentiate these  goods or services of one entity/ business from those of other entities in the course of trade.   Generally, a sign can be anything from a visible distinctive word or words, letter (s), numeral (number), drawing, picture, shape, color, logotype, label or a combination of one or all of these things. While Trademarks that cannot be registered are marks contrary to moral standards or public order, generic terms non-distinctive marks, surnames, geographic location names, marks that are contrary to law, and marks that may deceive the public or cause confusion.   Trademark Registration Application Process in PNG   The average time frame for the registration approval is 10 months, if no objections or oppositions arise. However, because PNG has not yet joined the Madrid Agreement, you cannot make PNG the destination country for international Trademark registration via the Madrid Protocol. So, if you want to apply there, you must appoint an experienced Trademark Consultant who can be trusted to submit the application to IPOPNG.   However, just like Trademark registration in any country, the first step that is highly recommended is carrying out the search process. This process is essential to check whether the Trademark you want to register is already registered or is being applied for by another party. For this reason, you can visit the WIPO site sorted into the IPOPNG database or the IPOPNG search page for this search process.   After going through the search process and getting an idea of how successful your Trademark registration is, you can continue by paying the application fee to IPOPNG through the Trademark Consultant you have appointed. The following process for Trademark registration in PNG can be seen in the following flowchart: Validity Period for Trademark Protection in PNG   Once your Trademark is registered in PNG, the protection period is ten years from the date of application, and it can be extended for a further ten years by paying a renewal fee. If you want to extend your Trademark, you can apply 1 (one) year before the protection period ends. However, if, for one reason or another, you are late in renewing, you still have a maximum of 1 (one) year after the protection period ends to pay the renewal fee, plus a late payment.   You need to pay attention to the fact that every Trademark registered in PNG must be used. If it is not used for 3 (three) consecutive years, other parties can apply to cancel your Mark. However, if you really don’t want to continue using it, you can request cancellation or transfer ownership to another party.   Should you need further information regarding Trademark registration in Papua New Guinea or other countries, please email us at [email protected]. Source: – Intellectual Property Office of Papua New Guinea

Details
[Important Update] Trademark Certificate Required for Textile, Bag, & Footwear Imports in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

[Important Update] Trademark Certificate Required for Textile, Bag, & Footwear Imports in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Trademark1 Comment

Effective March 10, 2024, in order to increase Trademark protection and control product quality on the market, Indonesian Ministry of Industry (MOI) has implemented a new regulation significantly impacting importers of textiles, textile products, bags, and footwear. This revision to MOI Regulation No. 5 of 2024 Article 23(3) concerns the procedures for issuing technical considerations for these imports.   Significant changes have occurred, including the addition of the following documents, which are mandatory when an importer submits a General Import Permit for Consumption (API-U).   Trademark Certificates issued by DGIP under the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia; Proof of recordation the License Agreement, Sublicense, and/or Letter of Appointment from the Trademark Owner to the Authorized Representative; and Letter of Appointment to Import from the Trademark Owner or Authorized Representative.   Affected Products Textiles: Fibers, threads, and fabrics; Textile Products: Carpets, other textile floor coverings, clothing, ready-made clothing accessories, and other finished textile goods; Bags: Suitcases, wallets, school bags, sports bags, handbags, and other bags; Footwear: Shoes, sandals, and moccasins.   The general import permit process remains in place, where the General Import Permit for Consumption (API-U) applies to businesses importing for trading purposes. The application process involves a General Importer Verification (VIU) followed by the MOI’s Technical Consideration (Pertek). Obtaining the API-U permit requires submitting the VIU report and Pertek results to the MOT.   Impact on Importers This new requirement poses a challenge for importers who haven’t secured Trademark registration in Indonesia. The lengthy Trademark registration process, typically taking 1-2 years, necessitates immediate discussions with Trademark owners to obtain the necessary certificates and avoid delays in obtaining import permits. Should you need further information regarding this regulation, including how to register a trademark in Indonesia, please contact us via email [email protected].

Details