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].

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…