FAQs: Patent Office Proceedings in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions about Patent Office Proceedings in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual Property

Patenting Timetable and Costs Q: How long does it typically take, and how much does it typically cost, to obtain a Patent?   A: The process of registering a patent in Indonesia involves several steps, including jling a Patent application, publication, examination and grant. The general process is as follows:   Filing a Patent Application: A Patent Application must be filed with the Indonesian Intellectual Property Office (DGIP). For PCT applications, the deadline will be 31 months from the earliest priority date. Late filing is possible with additional official fees.   Publication: The publication period in Indonesia lasts for six months. After the publication stage has been passed, the application will proceed to examination (as long as the applicant has filed for the substantive examination request).   Examination: After filing, the Patent Office will examine the Patent Application to determine if it meets the requirements for grant. This process may involve a review of the prior art and an examination of the novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability of the invention.   Amendment: If the Patent Office finds that the Patent Application does not meet the requirements for grant, the applicant may be given an opportunity to respond to objections raised and amend the application to address any deficiencies. This can be in the form of an office action.   Grant: If the Patent Office determines that the Patent Application meets the requirements for grant, a Patent will be granted and the applicant will be issued a notice of allowance or grant and then will be followed with the issuance of a Patent Certificate, but very often the certificate is not issued for months or even years.   Maintenance: Once a patent has been granted, the applicant must take steps to maintain the Patent, including paying maintenance fees and renewing the patent as required. The first annuity payment must be paid within six months of the notice of allowance or grant.   On average, it takes approximately three to five years from filing to registration. We cannot comment on the costs given the variable conditions that affect it.   Expedited Patent Prosecution Q: Are there any procedures to expedite Patent Prosecution?   A: The DGIP, under the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, has established various procedures under which the examination of a Patent Application may be accelerated. Under these procedures, the DGIP will advance an application out of turn for faster examination if the applicant files the following special requests through the ASEAN Patent Examination Co-operation (ASPEC) programme, the Indonesia – Japan Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme, Indonesia – South Korea PPJ programme, or simply by providing the examiner in charge the granted corresponding claims from other patent offices (eg, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Japan Patent Office (JPO), European Patent Office (EPO) and others).   ASPEC   ASPEC is a regional Patent work-sharing programme that involves nine ASEAN member states. The programme allows each participating Patent Office to share search and examination results to help applicants obtain corresponding Patents faster and more efficiently. The goal of ASPEC is to reduce duplication of search and examination work and produce high-quality examination reports. By obtaining examination results from other countries in the participating Patent Offices, applicants can accelerate the examination process, as long as the corresponding claims are the same.   When requesting ASPEC, the Patent Applicant is required to submit an ASPEC request form to the second Patent Office. The form must be accompanied by the following documents: a copy of the search and examination (S&E) report or the examination report (minimum documents) of a corresponding application from the first IP Office, and a copy of the claims referred to in the minimum documents submitted, with at least one claim determined by the first IP office to be allowable or patentable.   For a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) ASPEC request, the Patent Applicant is required to indicate that the request is for PCT ASPEC in the ASPEC form. The completed ASPEC request form shall be submitted together with the following documents:   a copy of the written opinion international preliminary examination report (WO/ISA, WO/IPEA or IPER) established by an ASEAN International Searching Authority or International Preliminary Examining Authority (ASEAN ISA/IPEA) (‘minimum documents’) relating to a corresponding application from the first IP Office, and a copy of the claims referred to in the minimum documents submitted, with at least one claim determined by the jrst IP office to be allowable or patentable.   The request to utilise ASPEC can only be done after the application has finished the publication stage. Based on our experience, the time it takes from filing the ASPEC request until the issuance of the decision to grant will not be more than 12 months – a great improvement in lead or pendency times compared to the processing time for non-ASPEC (or PPH) Patent Applications in Indonesia.   Indonesia – Japan Patent Prosecution Highway (Indonesia-Japan PPH)   The Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the DGIP initiated a Patent Prosecution Highway Program (PPH) on 1 June 2013, and since then, the PPH has been chosen by many applicants who have previously filed their base applications in Japan as the method of accelerating the Patent Applications in Indonesia. The PPH request can be filed at any time as long as it is before the deadline to request the substantive examination stage. There will be an official fee of 5 million rupiahs incurred for requesting the PPH acceleration programme.   When it comes to the requirements, the DGIP will require the applicant to provide the following documents to start an accelerated examination process: all formality documents required to file the application have been submitted and the notice of formality documents completion issued by the DGIP; proof of payment to file a substantive examination request; the application should have passed the publication period of six months; completed PPH form; corresponding claims that should be equivalent or less compared to the claims granted by the…

Indonesia Adopts International Treaty for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge - AFFA IPR

Indonesia Adopts International Treaty for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge

Intellectual Property

After 11 days of intensive negotiations, the International Diplomatic Conference at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, on May 24th, agreed on and adopted the International Treaty on the Protection of Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge. This is the first WIPO Treaty to address the interface between Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge, and it is also the first to include provisions specifically for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.   The final round of negotiations, attended by 193 representatives of WIPO member states, Indigenous People, and Local Communities, also agreed on a new international law on transparency and protection of the global Patent system.   By definition and scope, Genetic Resources are contained in, for example, medicinal plants, agricultural crops, and animal breeds. While Genetic Resources themselves cannot be directly protected as Intellectual Property, inventions developed using them can, most often through a Patent. Some Genetic Resources are also associated with Traditional Knowledge through their use and conservation by Indigenous Peoples as well as local communities, often over generations. This knowledge is sometimes used in scientific research and, as such, may contribute to the development of a protected invention.   With this treaty, Indonesia and countries that own Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge will gain several significant benefits as follows:   Transparency The global Patent system will experience increased transparency with the obligation of each country to disclose Patents globally. The Enactment of Sanctions Mechanisms The protection of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge will be enhanced by imposing adequate sanctions. The Creation of Global Standards The treaty will promote standardization and harmonization of global regulations. Protection of Local Wisdom The treaty opens up opportunities to advance other issues related to traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expression.   The Treaty itself will be signed at the 65th WIPO General Assemblies in July. After the Diplomatic Conference in May, Indonesia signed the Final Act, a non-binding document serving as a record of the proceedings. However, signing the Treaty will not immediately lead to ratification or accession to this Treaty. It would have to go through internal processes with all the stakeholders in Indonesia, such as the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, and the House of Representatives.    Should you need more information about IP protection in Indonesia or abroad, don’t hesitate to contact us at [email protected].   Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

FAQs: Patent Licensing in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions about Patent Licensing in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual Property

Voluntary Licensing Q: Are they any restrictions on the contractual terms by which a Patent Owner may license a Patent?   A: Several minimum requirements should be met. A licence agreement should contain: the date, month, year and place where the licence agreement was signed; name and address of the licensor and the licensee; the object of the licence agreement; provisions regarding the exclusivity or non-exclusivity of the licence, including sub-licensing; the term of the licence agreement; the area where the license agreement applies; and the party responsible for paying annual fees for the Patent (see Government Regulation No. 36 Year 2018 on Intellectual Property License Agreement Recordal). If either the licensor or licensee resides outside of Indonesia or are foreign nationals, the application for recording the licence agreement must be submitted through a registered IP consultant.   The licence agreement should be recorded before the Patent Office in order to have a binding legal effect to any third party.   Compulsory licences Q: Are any mechanisms available to obtain a compulsory licence to a patent? How are the terms of such a licence determined?   A: Compulsory licences can be requested if a Registered Patent has not been used or worked in Indonesia within 36 months (three years) of registration. Other conditions that allow compulsory licensing include the implementation of a Registered Patent would be in the public interest, and it is not possible to obtain a licence to implement a Patent.   Note that there are previous steps that need to be shown to obtain a compulsory licence. The applicants must show evidence that they intend to use the Patent based on their capability, and that attempts were made to contact the patent holder to obtain a licence for a maximum of 12 months but a favourable response was not received. The Ministry should also be in agreement that the patent can be performed in Indonesia on an economically feasible scale and provide benefits to society.    See Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 30 of 2019 on Procedures for the Granting of Compulsory Patent Licensing, which later has been replaced by the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 14 Year 2021 on the Amendment to the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 30 of 2019 on Procedures for the Granting of Compulsory Patent Licensing. Should you need more information regarding Patent Licensing in Indonesia, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

Recommended Representation of FIgures for Industrial Deisgn Applications in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Recommended Representation of Figures for Industrial Design Applications in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Industrial Design

Indonesian awareness of the importance of protecting Industrial Design has continued to increase in the last five years. This can be seen from the significantly increasing number of Industrial Design registrations. From 2,319 applications in 2017, it grew to 2,835 in 2019, jumped again to 2,957 in 2021, and peaked in 2022 with 3,533 applications.   The Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), the Industrial Design Office in Indonesia, has also proposed changes to the Industrial Design Law to remain relevant to the latest creations and innovations. However, when submitting an Industrial Design application, at least 8 (eight) recommended representations of figures for Industrial stay the same, and you must follow them. Those recommendations are:   Do not combine different features or colors in the same design. The design must be represented on a neutral background. Do not include extra elements that are not part of the design. Each image must have only one view of the design, namely front, back, top, bottom, left, right and perspective view. Magnified views must be uploaded as separate images. To exclude unregistered elements, disclaim them identically in all views. Disassembled product views require a corresponding assembled view. To protect a 2D ornament/pattern, submit it alone, not on a product. Should you have further questions about registering for Industrial Design in Indonesia or abroad, do not hesitate to email us at [email protected].

FAQs: Patent Remedies in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions about Patent Remedies in Indonesia

Patent, Intellectual Property

Monetary Remedies for Infringement Q: What monetary remedies are available against a Patent infringer? When do damages start to accrue? Do damage awards tend to be nominal, provide fair compensation, or be punitive? How are royalties calculated?   A: All laws about Intellectual Property assets allow the infringed to seek damages through the Court of Commerce. However, there is no known formula for determining the damages to be awarded. When seeking damages, the plaintiff considers the combination of material loss and immaterial loss. The latter often has a significantly higher amount. Still, we have not seen any landmark cases where the Court of Commerce awards the plaintiff with the total sought damages based on material and immaterial loss.   The compensation shall be given based on a final and binding decision of a civil or criminal court.   Injunctions Against Infringement Q: To what extent can a temporary injunction or a final injunction against future infringement be obtained? Is an injunction effective against the infringer’s suppliers or customers?   A: Regarding injunctions, the Patent Law allows the rights holder to request a provisional injunction to stop the entry and circulation of infringing items, secure or confine them, and avoid greater losses.   The injunction petition shall be filed before the Court of Commerce.   Banning Importation of Infringing Products Q: To what extent is it possible to block the importation of infringing products into the country? Is there a specific tribunal or proceeding available to accomplish this?   A: Banning the importation of infringing products is only practically possible if it is related to Trademark or Copyright infringement, which can be done by filing a Customs IP Recordal Application before the Indonesian Customs and Excise. Even then, it is only possible if the rights holder is an Indonesian individual or holds a share in an Indonesian company.   Attorneys’ Fees Q: Under what conditions can a successful litigant recover costs and attorneys’ fees?   A: Attorney’s fees shall be borne by the party that receives legal services from the entrusted attorney. Hence, seeking compensation from the other party for the legal fees already incurred by the claimant or plaintiff will not be possible.   Wilful Infringement Q: Are additional remedies available against a deliberate or wilful infringer? If so, what is the test or standard to determine whether the infringement is deliberate? Are opinions of counsel used as a defense to a charge of wilful infringement?   A: There are no additional remedies available against deliberate or wilful infringement. The Patent Law does not specify the threshold level that constitutes wilful or intentional infringement. The Patent Law only states that without a patent holder’s permission, it is prohibited to make, use, sell, import, rent, deliver, or provide any patented product for sale or rent. Additionally, using a patented process to make a product or taking other actions, as mentioned above, is prohibited without the patent holder’s permission. In summary, this provision sets out the exclusive rights of a patent holder. It prohibits others from using, selling, or making the patented product or process without permission (see Article 160 of the Patent Law).   The Limits for Lawsuits Q: What is the time limit for seeking a remedy for Patent infringement?   A: The Patent Law does not regulate any specific time limit for filing a Patent infringement or compensation claim. As long as the Patent is still registered, the holder has the right to enforce it.   Patent Marking Q: Must a Patent holder mark its patented products? If so, how must the marking be made? What are the consequences of failure to mark? What are the implications of false Patent marking?   A: The Patent Law does not regulate the obligation concerning Patent marking.   Should you need more information regarding Patent Remedies in Indonesia, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

Indonesia's Copyright Dilemma: When Good Intentions Pave the Way to (Unintended) Infringement - AFFA IPR

Indonesia’s Copyright Dilemma: When Good Intentions Pave the Way to (Unintended) Infringement

Copyright1 Comment

Viral on Social Media about how the family of the late proclaimer of the Republic of Indonesia, Bung Hatta, objected to his speeches, which had been released in book form, being digitized and distributed free to the public by a public official for educational reasons and not for commercial purposes. Why might the family raise objections? Were any laws violated?   Suppose you have several classic books published before 1960, which contain a collection of speeches by Bung Hatta (who died on March 14, 1980), and you have done research that the publisher is no longer there. Then, it doesn’t mean you can transform the creation; in this case, make a digital version and share it for free without permission from the heirs.   Article 40 of the Copyright Law recognizes a book and a lecture/speech as protected works. Most of these books contain Bung Hatta’s speeches, not as the first Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia but as a person who gave speeches on various occasions. So, the assumption that the speech is not protected by Copyright falls.   Specifically, the Copyright Law regulates Moral and Economic Rights, which are creators’ Exclusive Rights. In this case, Bung Hatta gets Moral Rights without time limits and Economic Rights for up to 70 years after his death. If we calculate that Bung Hatta died in 1980, his Economic Rights will still be valid for 70 years starting January 1 of the following year (1981) and will only end in December 2050.   Sanctions for Transformation & Distribution of Works Without Permission   Transforming activities are considered a different Copyright violation than the distribution of works. So parties who create a digital version of a book and share the link without permission can be subject to two articles at once, namely the Copyright Law Article 113 Paragraphs (2) and (3): a maximum imprisonment of 3 (three) years and/or a maximum fine of IDR 500,000,000.00 (five hundred million rupiah) for transforming without permission; And a maximum prison sentence of 4 (four) years and/or a maximum fine of IDR 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah) for distribution without permission.   But what if you argue that you’re doing it for free?   For educational reasons and not charging fees by distributing it for free, you could say that this activity does not harm the reasonable interests of the Creator, known as the term “Fair Use.” However, it would be best to remember that Fair Use does not look at elements of commercialization. As long as the Copyright holder objects, you can be considered violating Copyright.   The basis is stated in the Explanation of Article 44 paragraph (1) letter a of the Copyright Law, which states “Reasonable Interests of the Creator or Copyright Holder” are interests based on balance in enjoying the economic benefits of a Creation, and it is proven that Bung Hatta’s family has submitted object.   Reasons for Bung Hatta’s Family to Object   In their statement via social media X (Twitter) on June 9, 2024, the family of Halida Hatta, Bung Hatta’s youngest daughter, expressed disappointment from Bung Hatta’s heirs over the piracy of Bung Hatta’s writing, which was shared on social media X. In another statement, the heir reminded us that even though the post was taken down, it can still be prosecuted legally.   The heirs stated that since 1988, Meutia Farida Hatta, the first daughter of Bung Hatta, together with the publisher LP3ES, have collected his works, up to 9 (nine) volumes, so that his writings do not disappear and can be accessed by the public, both by purchasing the physical book in a bookstore or online, or accessing it for free at the National Library.   In their follow-up statement, the heir stated that Bung Hatta’s family had followed the Copyright Memoir, which were published in 1978 by the publisher Tinta Mas before being republished by the publisher Gramedia and then collected and republished by LP3ES. The family does not intend to share or publish it themselves because they are paying respect to the Economic Rights of each publisher. And for now, all of Bung Hatta’s works can be purchased officially at the LP3ES Book Gallery.   Therefore, if you have good intentions to share educational information from a book, especially if you want to share the entire contents of the book for free, the most important thing you have to do is contact the heirs of the Creator. This is because you will get legal information about a work. For example, who is also the Copyright holder for the work, whether it can still be obtained legally, or when the Copyright protection period ends?   So don’t assume that non-commercial actions you carry out without permission will not have legal consequences. The Copyright Law guarantees that Moral and Economic rights are the Exclusive Rights of the Creator and his heirs until the work falls into the Public Domain.   You might also want to read: Demystifying the Public Domain: Permissions and Limitations Should you need further information regarding Copyright and Intellectual Property protection in Indonesia or abroad, do not hesitate to contact us via email: [email protected].

Steps to Consider if Your Copyright is Infringed in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Steps to Consider if Your Copyright is Infringed in Indonesia

Copyright

To date, Indonesia is still considered as a “hot bed” for Copyright infringements. Many infringements vary from petty ones to the heavily industrialised ones. Copyrights are protected under the Law No. 28 Year 2014 on Copyrights and by definition, a (Copyright) Creation is any creative work in the fields of science, art, and literature that is produced based on inspiration, ability, thought, imagination, dexterity, skill or expertise expressed in tangible form. A Creator is a person or several people who produce a Creation. Meanwhile, the Copyright Holder is the Creator or other party, including a company that is also given the right by the Creator to obtain Exclusive Rights and economic benefits from a Creation.   Therefore, if another party benefits from a work without permission from the Copyright Holder, it can be categorized as a Copyright infringement. In particular, piracy activities also have the meaning clearly stated in Article 1 of the Copyright Law, namely the illegal duplication of works and/or related rights products and the widespread distribution of goods resulting from such duplication to obtain economic benefits.   Because economic benefits are the Copyright Holder’s exclusive right and infringement is still widespread in the modern era, if you are a Creator or Copyright Holder, you need to understand your rights and know what you can do when your work is pirated in Indonesia.   Record Your Creation before the Copyright Office under the DIrectorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP)   Copyright protection is granted automatically from the time the copyrighted work is produced. This is different from other Intellectual Property, such as Trademarks and Patents, which must be registered first to obtain protection. Therefore, the term used to register copyright with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP)—Ministry of Law and Human Rights (Kemenkumham) is “recordation.”   Hence, no recordation is required to prosecute or file a lawsuit against a party deemed to have violated Copyright. However, suppose there is a dispute regarding Copyright ownership of a work. In that case, a work recordation letter issued by the Minister, in this case the DGIP, and recorded in the General Register of Works is initial proof of ownership of a work and is substantial evidence in court.   Prioritize Mediation, Amicable Settlements, Before Pursuing Criminal Charges   Article 95 Paragraph (4) of the Copyright Law stipulates that Copyright violations, including piracy, must take mediation before making criminal charges.   So if you find that your work has been pirated, you can give an informal warning first, followed by a warning letter, if you don’t get a response.   Contents of the Warning Letter: In general, there are no standard rules governing the contents of a warning letter, but it must clearly describe the following 5 (five) things: Intended party; The problem being addressed; The demands of the sender, which the recipient must implement; Legal basis and legal standing of the sender; and The period for demands must be met.   Violations in Social Media/E-Commerce   Piracy is rampant on various social media and e-commerce platforms in the internet era. Technically, each platform also provides a complaint service if pirated goods are found. If you find Trademarks or Copyrights being bought and sold there without permission, you can start from the self-report system or go to the particular page provided.   In general, you need to prepare the following 3 (three) things if your report is to be followed up: Proof of ownership of the work in the form of a work recordation letter issued by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, a statement of work ownership signed by you, or a similar document; Proof of your identity (ID card, driving license, passport, or similar); and Power of attorney from the Copyright Holder by the document proving ownership of the work you attached (if you are not the owner of the Copyright but are the recipient of the power of attorney from the Copyright owner to make a report).   You might also want to read: Tackling Counterfeiters on Indonesian E-Commerce Sites   Suppose pirates or platforms ignore your warning. In that case, you need to engage an experienced Intellectual Property Consultant who can provide further advice so that piracy activities from other parties can be stopped immediately or proceed with criminal prosecution at the Commercial Court.   Violations By Fellow Creators   A problem that also often occurs in Copyright disputes is disputes between Creators who claim they have the right to get more than others. For example, a comic was created jointly by an illustrator, a colorist, and a writer. If, in the future, the writer feels that his share is smaller, he might claim his rights. There was also a case that went viral in which a band was subpoenaed and prohibited from performing songs by writers who had left the band.   That is where the critical role of copyright recording with DGIP is to avoid disputes that may arise in the future between creators. In the Copyright Recordation, which is then included in the DGIP General Register of Creations, you can consist of all existing Creators. But again, mediation is still the most recommended route before trial.   Furthermore, you can also register a License Agreement for the work you own because it is possible for you, as the Creator of a character, to need vendors or other parties interested in getting economic benefits from your creation. For example, suppose a t-shirt or toy manufacturer is interested in commercializing your work in massive quantities and distributing it throughout Indonesia. In that case, you need to make a clear License Agreement that details how much royalties or profit sharing scheme you will get and register the agreement with DGIP as a firm grip in case of default or dispute in the future.   You might also want to read: Unveiling Copyright Ownership in the Film Industry: Legal Perspectives Should you need more information about Copyright protection in Indonesia, don’t hesitate to contact us at…

FAQs: Patent Enforcement Proceedings in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions about Patent Enforcement Proceedings in Indonesia

Patent

Lawsuits and Courts Q: What legal or administrative proceedings are available for enforcing Patent rights against an infringer? Are there specialized courts in which a Patent infringement lawsuit can or must be brought?   A: In Indonesia, Patent owners can enforce their rights against infringers through various legal and administrative proceedings. Some of these proceedings include the following: Civil Lawsuit: Patent owners can file a civil lawsuit against infringers in a commercial court. The court can grant temporary injunctive relief, damages, and other remedies to the Patent owner. However, legal costs cannot be borne by the losing party. Criminal Complaint: Patent owners can file a criminal complaint against infringers with the civil investigator, the Indonesian Police Force, or both. The police will investigate the complaint and, if they find evidence of infringement, can prosecute the infringer. If convicted, the infringer can face imprisonment, a fine, or both.   The commercial courts are responsible for handling Intellectual Property cases in Indonesia, and they have been established in Jakarta, Makassar, Medan, Semarang, and Surabaya to specifically deal with commercial matters, such as bankruptcy and Intellectual Property cases, according to President Decree No. 97 of 1999. However, the judges who preside over Patent infringement matters do not necessarily have the required technical backgrounds. Hence, the presence of expert witnesses in Patent litigation cases is essential. In cases of infringement, the jurisdiction is determined by the defendant’s domicile. If the Patent holder or claimant is located outside Indonesia, the case must be filed with the Commercial Court of Central Jakarta, as specified in article 144 of the Patent Law.   Trial Format and Timing Q: What is the format of a Patent infringement trial?   A: Civil proceedings in Indonesia are conducted in writing and oral arguments. The judges will listen to the oral arguments of each party one at a time, and they rely heavily on the documentary evidence. Witnesses of fact can also provide oral evidence before the court. However, a witness statement or affidavit alone will not be sufficient since it is considered merely supplementary documentary evidence. In general, the procedure of the trial is as follows:   Attendance at the first hearing after the court summons both plaintiff and defendant; Attendance at the second hearing, when the defendant files its response to the plaintiff’s cancellation suit; Preparation of the plaintiff’s reply to the defendant’s response to the suit; Attendance at the third hearing to file the plaintiff’s reply; Attendance at the fourth hearing when the defendant files its response to the plaintiff’s reply; Preparation of the plaintiff’s evidence to be submitted to the court; Attendance at the fifth hearing to submit the plaintiff’s evidence and review the defendant’s evidence; Preparation and filing of the conclusion of the case based on documents and evidence filed with the court by both plaintiff and defendant; Attendance at the sixth hearing on the filing of the conclusion of the case;  Attendance at the seventh hearing to hear the judges’ decision; and Issuance of the court’s decision.   For Patent civil disputes, pursuant to article 145(4) of the Patent Law, the trial can be conducted privately if both parties make requests to the Court of Commerce for the trial to be private. This is to protect the secrecy of processes that would be easily manipulated or improved by a person knowledgeable in the relevant field.   Note that by law the court of commerce must issue its decision within 180 days of the date of filing of the civil suit in Patent matters. However, for criminal actions the process may take longer depending on the complexity of the case and the number of witnesses and evidence presented. However, it typically lasts between six to 18 months.   Unlike in various jurisdictions where there are specialised courts or judges that specialise in Intellectual Property matters, Indonesia does not have such a system. Bear in mind that the court of commerce discussed above also caters to non-IP matters if the dispute is of a commercial nature. Also, the judges do not have science backgrounds – hence the importance of involving expert witnesses during the suit. Expert witnesses may be called upon to provide their opinions on technical or scientific matters that are relevant to the case.   Indonesia has not adopted the jury system, and judges play an important and active role in court hearings. Furthermore, precedents are considered to be merely advisory in nature and they do not have binding legal force as in common law systems.   Proof Requirements Q: What are the burdens of proof for establishing infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of a Patent?   A: As per article 1865 of the Civil Code, the party making the claim is responsible for providing evidence to support it. Therefore, in a Patent infringement case, the claimant must prove that infringement has occurred by showing the evidence.   However, article 145 of the Patent Law allows the reversal of the burden of proof to the defendant in a Patent invalidation lawsuit involving a patented process if: The product resulting from the patented process is new; or The product is suspected of being produced using the patented process, but the Patent holder cannot determine the process used to make the product even after making enough efforts to find out.   A Patent owner holds exclusive rights to exploit their Patent and prevent others from using, making, importing, renting out, delivering, supplying for sale or rental, or conducting any other activity involving the patented product or process. However, in cases involving patented processes where the resulting product is new and the Patent holder cannot determine how the defendant produced it, the burden of proof can be reversed, as per article 145 of the Patent Law. In such cases, the court will require the defendant to prove that their product does not involve a patented process. The judge will also safeguard the defendant’s interests by potentially closing the proceedings to the public.   Standing to Sue Q: Who…

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…

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…