Legal Implications of Couterfeit Drugs in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Legal Implications of Counterfeit Drugs in Indonesia

Intellectual Property

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 890 million people worldwide suffer from obesity, driving high demand for weight-loss medications. One of the most popular drugs is Ozempic, produced by Novo Nordisk (NOVOb.CO), which generated nearly $19 billion in net sales last year. Ozempic’s active ingredient, semaglutide, leads to an average weight loss of 15% by reducing food cravings and slowing stomach emptying. However, this success comes with a steep price—over $1,000 for a month’s supply in the U.S.   Despite its effectiveness, the high price of Ozempic has opened the door to counterfeit versions. A fake Ozempic batch number MP5B060 has surfaced in at least 10 countries, from Azerbaijan to North Macedonia. The WHO issued a warning in July 2023 about products carrying this batch number, and Interpol also raised concerns about insulin pens being relabeled and repackaged to resemble Ozempic.   While some countries have banned the affected batch, others have not, leading to dangerous consequences. In at least four countries, fake Ozempic pens have resulted in hospitalizations. For instance, in Iraq, a man fell into a coma after using a counterfeit pen that caused his blood sugar to drop to dangerously low levels.   The Global Impact of Counterfeit Drugs   Since early last year, at least 18 different batch numbers have been found on fake Ozempic pens in 14 countries. Despite warnings, the issue persists because the solution is far from simple. Each legitimate batch of Ozempic contains 280,000 pens, and some countries are reluctant to withdraw entire batches due to the risk of exacerbating drug shortages.   Novo Nordisk has blamed international counterfeit drug syndicates, stating that they easily buy genuine products and replicate the codes to create fake ones. Rather than manufacturing packaging from scratch, these syndicates buy cheaper drugs with similar packaging and relabel them as Ozempic, making it difficult for consumers to identify the difference. This has led to severe health consequences, as unsuspecting buyers end up with insulin rather than semaglutide, leading to severe hypoglycemia.   No Packaging Change: The Ongoing Risk   Novo Nordisk has no immediate plans to change Ozempic’s packaging or register it as a new Industrial Design, stating that counterfeiters would simply find new ways to replicate the new design. This leaves consumers at risk and underscores the importance of being vigilant.   Finally, we must increase our vigilance by implementing the following steps: Only buy from authorized distributors. Always check the batch code to ensure you have a legitimate product. Don’t be tempted by low prices, especially for imported drugs.   If This Happens in Indonesia, What Are the Legal Sanctions?   This situation can be overcome with more decisive action from the supervisory authorities. In Indonesia, for example, there is Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM), which is proactive in conducting raids and monitoring updates related to counterfeit drug products from abroad; these drugs can be withdrawn from circulation before they harm consumers and damage the reputation of the original product.   BPOM has also been equipped with BPOM Regulation Number 16 of 2023 concerning Supervision of the Distribution of Traditional Medicines, Quasi Drugs, and Health Supplements, which gives them the authority to impose administrative sanctions in the form of cancellation/revocation of distribution permit numbers, Importer recommendations; and/or recommendations of business entities in the marketing sector if the business is proven to receive, store, and/or distribute illegal drugs including counterfeit drugs (Article 23b).   Meanwhile, if viewed from the perspective of the Trademark as regulated in Article 100 Paragraph (2) of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Brands and Geographical Indications, anyone who violates another person’s registered Trademark, whose type of goods causes health problems, environmental problems, and/or human death, shall be punished with a maximum imprisonment of 10 (ten) years and/or a maximum fine of IDR 5,000,000,000.00 (five billion rupiah).   Viewed from the perspective of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection as regulated in Article 8, where this article expressly prohibits business actors from producing or trading goods that do not meet or violate the required standards, including the sale of counterfeit drugs. Violation of this article can be subject to a maximum imprisonment of 5 years or a maximum fine of IDR 2 billion. Article 19 also states that the seller is responsible for all losses experienced by consumers due to the use of counterfeit products. Consumers have the right to claim compensation, which can be filed through a civil lawsuit.   No less critical, Law Number 17 of 2023 concerning Health, specifically Article 435 states that anyone who produces or distributes Pharmaceutical Preparations and/or Medical Devices that do not meet the standards and/or requirements for safety, efficacy/benefit, and quality as referred to in Article 138 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of 12 (twelve) years or a maximum fine of IDR 5,000,000,000.00 (five billion rupiah).   You might also want to read: Anti-Counterfeiting Methods: Choose the Right Strategy to Get Additional Protection for Your Intellectual Property   Should you need more information on protecting Intellectual Property both domestically and internationally, feel free to contact us at [email protected]. Source: Reuters  

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…

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…

FAQs: The Legal Framework of Trademark Protection in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions about the Legal Framework of Trademark Protection in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Trademark

Prevailing Laws and Regulations Q: What is the primary legislation governing Trademarks in Indonesia?   A: Law No. 20 2016 on Marks and Geographical Indications (the Trademark Law) is the primary law concerning Trademark in Indonesia. Several provisions in the Trademark Law were then amended under the Law No. 11 Yeat 2020 in Job Creation, and then further amended under the Law No. 6 Year 2023 on the Enactment of a Replacement Government Regulation in Lieu of the Law No. 2 Year 2022 on Job Creation as Law.   Moreover, there are several by-laws that regulate more specific matters, such as, but not limited to:   Government Regulation No. 28 2019 concerning Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenues Applicable to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. This regulation sets the official fees for various actions that can be filed before the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) under the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia. Government Regulation No. 22 2018 concerning International Registration of Marks Under the Protocols Relevant to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. This regulation covers all aspects of international registrations filed to or from Indonesia. Government Regulation No. 90 2019 concerning The Trademark Appeal Commission, which was established on 29 August 1995 concerning Procedures for Application, Examination and Settlement of Appeals at the Mark Appeal Commission. The Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation No. 12 2021 concerning Amendments to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation No. 67 of 2016 concerning Trademark Registration Decree of the Director General of Intellectual Property in the Field of Trademarks. The ministerial regulation prescribes, among others, the requirements of registration, classes of goods and services, rectification of issued certificates and recordals.   International Law Q: Which international Trademark agreements has Indonesia signed?   A: Indonesia has ratified various agreements concerning Trademarks, such as the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, the Trademark Law Treaty and the Paris Convention.   Regulators Q: Which government bodies regulate the Trademark Law?   A: The Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) under the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia is the relevant body that administrates the protection of all Intellectual Properties, including Trademarks. The DGIP goes beyond regulating and implementing the law, it is also responsible for proactively disseminating the information pertaining to the importance of IP protection through various means, such as podcasts, YouTube videos, Instagram posts and seminars conducted around Indonesia. Should you need more information regarding Legal Framework of Trademark in Indonesia, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

The Management of Royalties for Secondary Use Licenses for the Copyright of Books and/or other Written Works in Indonesia - A Closer Look at the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 15 of 2024 - AFFA IPR

The Management of Royalties for Secondary Use Licenses for the Copyright of Books and/or other Written Works in Indonesia – A Closer Look at the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 15 of 2024

Intellectual Property, Copyright

The Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, Yasonna Laoly, has officially ratified the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation (Permenkumham) Number 15 of 2024 concerning Management of Royalties for Secondary Use Licenses for the Copyright of Books and/or Other Written Works.   What is meant by Secondary Use for Book Copyright and/or other Written Works are all activities as follows: printing; photocopy; scanning; screenshot; internet downloading; emailing; posting/uploading; storing; sharing; read aloud in a form of video and/or audio; live performing; or web scraping.   This regulation, published on June 12, 2024, is expected to increase income for book creators and publishers in Indonesia. It also regulates who receives, pays, and distributes royalties for books and other written works.   More specifically, this Regulation describes the following provisions: Royalty Recipient Creator of books and/or other written works who has become a member of the Collective Management Organization (LMK) in the field of books and/or other written works. Royalty Payer Secondary Users include: education units; colleges; educational institutions; research institutions; ministries/institutions/regional governments; private businesses that carry out document duplication activities; photocopying service business; electronic system administrator; broadcasting institutions; artificial intelligence (AI) developer; other Secondary Users in accordance with statutory provisions. Imposition of Royalties The amount of Royalty for Secondary Use of Book Creations and/or Other Written Works is determined by LMK in the field of Books and/or Other Written Works, the amount of which is stated in a mutual agreement stipulated in a written agreement between LMK and Secondary Users, and ratified by the Minister.   Secondary Use rates for educational units, universities, educational institutions, and micro and small businesses can be adjusted by submitting an application letter to LMK with supporting evidence. Royalty Distribution Royalties that LMK has withdrawn will be collected and distributed only to Creators of books and/or other written works who have become members of the LMK, and this is done at least 1 (one) time in 1 (one) year. The Indonesian Publishers Association (IKAPI) acts as LMK Currently, IKAPI has been designated as the first LMK in this field, and a supervisory team formed by the Minister of Law and Human Rights will monitor its performance and finances. Requirements to Become an LMK The Ministry of Law and Human Rights is still accepting applications for operational permits as LMK in the field of Books and/or other Written Works with the following requirements: in the form of a non-profit Indonesian legal entity; obtain authority from the Creator and/or Copyright Holder to collect, gather, and distribute Royalties; have authorized persons as members of at least 200 (two hundred) people who represent the interests of the Creator and/or Copyright Holder; aims to collect, gather, and distribute Royalties; able to collect, gather, and distribute Royalties to Creators and/or Copyright Holders; member of the LMK federation organization in the field of books and/or other written works of international reproduction; And have bilateral/reciprocal agreements with LMK in the field of Books and/or other similar written works in at least 5 (five) countries, government of a country’s particular administrative region and/or certain entities.   With the existence of Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 15 of 2024, it is hoped that the welfare of authors of books and/or other written works can increase, as well as encouraging the spirit of creativity and the creation of quality works in Indonesia.   Should you have further questions regarding Royalty Management for Secondary Use Licenses for Book Copyrights and/or Other Written Works in Indonesia, please do not hesitate to email us at [email protected].   Source: Directorate General Intellectual Property