An Analysis of Trademark Law in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

An Analysis of Trademark Law in Indonesia

Trademark

In Indonesia, the primary law on trademarks is Law No. 20 of 2016 on Marks and Geographical Indications, known as the Trademark Law. The Trademark Law was updated through Law No. 6, 2023 on the Enactment of a Replacement Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2, 2022 on Job Creation as Law. Furthermore, there are several bylaws that regulate more specific matters, including:   Government Regulation No. 28, 2019 concerning Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenues Applicable to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, which 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. Government Regulation No. 22, 2018 on the International Registration of Marks Under the Protocols Relevant to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, which covers all aspects of international registration filed in or from Indonesia. Government Regulation No. 90, 2019 concerning the Trademark Appeal Commission, established in 1995, concerning procedures for application, examination and settlement of appeals at the commission. The Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 12, 2021 on the Amendment to Regulation No. 67, 2016 concerning the Trademark Registration Decree of the Director General of Intellectual Property in the Field of Trademarks. The ministerial regulation covers registration, classes of goods and services, and the rectification of issued certificates and records. The Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 10, 2022 on the Amendment to Regulation of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 12, 2019 on Geographical Indications.   Scope of Trademarks   The Trademark Law holds a mark to be any sign capable of being represented graphically in the form of drawings, logos, names, words, letters, numerals, colour arrangements, in two and/or three-dimensional shapes, sounds, holograms, or a combination of two or more of these elements to distinguish goods and/or services produced by a person or legal entity in trading goods and/or services.   It acknowledges two types of Trademarks: traditional and non-traditional marks. Some marks cannot be registered due to their lack of inherent distinctiveness. These conditions are met if marks:   Are contrary to the state ideology, laws and regulations, religious morality, ethics, or public order; Are identical to, related to, or simply describe the goods and/or services for which registration is sought; Contain elements that could mislead the public about the origin, quality, type, size, variety or purpose of the goods and/or services for which registration is sought, or are the names of protected plant varieties for similar goods and/or services; Contain information that is not consistent with the quality, benefits, or efficacy of the goods and/or services produced; Lack distinctive character; Are common names and/or symbols belonging to the public; or Contain functional forms.   Applying   The Trademark Law adopts a first-to-file principle. In general, any individual, organisation or company can file for Trademark registration. However, the law also regulates Trademark registrations that are filed in bad faith. Article 21 of the Trademark Law stipulates that an application is refused if it is submitted by an applicant in bad faith.   In practice, it is quite challenging to determine whether an application is filed in bad faith or not.   A bad-faith application that later matures to registration can always be invalidated at the Court of Commerce, as regulated under article 77 of the Trademark Law. This article stipulates that: “The lawsuit for invalidation may be filed 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”.   Filing    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 stumbling blocks to an otherwise successful registration process.   Assuming the search report gives an all-clear sign to further the application process, the applicant will then need to supply the following:   Name of applicant; Address; List of goods and services; and Representation of the mark to be filed, which can be in the form of woodmark, logo or non-traditional marks. Once the information has been provided, the patent lawyer will prepare two documents to be signed by the client: a power of attorney, and a statement of mark ownership.   Since 2019, e-filing is the only acceptable method of filing in Indonesia.   Timeline   Assuming the application does not receive any opposition and provisional refusal, then it may take 10-13 months from filing to obtaining a registration number. This estimate is significantly faster than it used to be, when even a straightforward registration would take two to three years.   Opposing    Applications are published for two months only. During the publication period, any interested party may file for opposition. Their opposition will be considered during the substantive examination stage.   Once the publication period has lapsed, there are no other formal means of filing for opposition, including extension requests.   To successfully oppose an application, it is strongly recommended that the opposer has a valid legal standing – namely, an earlier Trademark application or registration in Indonesia. Otherwise, it is likely that the examiner will reject the opposition by citing the first-to-file principle.   Invalidations and cancellations initiated by any third party, which must be filed at the court of commerce, are only feasible once the target Trademark has been registered.   Foreign Name    A Trademark can only be protected if it is registered in Indonesia, regardless of its fame. However, the Trademark Law has a mechanism to somewhat protect famous foreign Trademarks from bad-faith registrations by other parties.   Should another party try to maliciously file an application for a Trademark that is identical or similar to a famous foreign Trademark, the application will be rejected on the basis of article 21 of the Trademark Law, which stipulates: “An application is refused if the mark is substantively similar to or identical with a well-known…

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…

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

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

Event, Intellectual Property, Trademark

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

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

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

Event, Trademark2 Comments

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

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

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

Trademark

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

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

[重要] 向印度尼西亚进口纺织品、箱包和鞋类需提供商标证书

TrademarkLeave a comment

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

The Benefits of IP Customs Recordation for Your IPs in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

The Benefits of IP Customs Recordation for Your IPs in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Trademark, Copyright

Recently, the Directorate General of Customs and Excise of the Republic of Indonesia (DGCE) has taken widespread action against tons of illegal food to protect consumers and the Indonesian food industry. Because the ingredients of food imported illegally are unknown, it can endanger residents and disrupt the distribution of local food producers. But did you know that Customs and Excise can also deter illegal goods that violate Intellectual Property abroad or within the country? Because DGCE is part of the Task Force together with the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia Police (Bareskrim Polri), the Indonesian Food and Drug Authority (BPOM), and the Directorate General of Informatics Applications (Ditjen Aptika), which supports the performance of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) in enforcing Intellectual Property Law in Indonesia. Enforcing this law is a collective homework because Indonesia is still on the list of world countries with serious Intellectual Property violations (along with Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Venezuela), as released by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in the 2023 Priority Watch List Special 301 Report. A few weeks ago, DGCE conducted outreach to the public so that the wider community, especially Intellectual Property (IP) owners, could take advantage of this service. So, if illegal products are found crossing state borders, IP owners, especially copyright and trademark owners, will be assisted in the deterrence process. But before that, you must first carry out the recordation process on the DGCE website. For those of you who are still unfamiliar with the term “deterrence”, this word has 2 (two) meanings, namely: Delaying the release, loading, or transportation of excisable goods and/or other goods related to excisable goods; Prevent the departure of means of transport.   The Benefits of IP Customs Recordation in DGCE The recordation process is an activity to enter your IP information into the DGCE customs database, with the following benefits: Action at Ports or Borders; Especially if the quantity of goods smuggled is very significant. Effective and efficient deterring before goods that violate IPR are distributed to the domestic market. Protecting IP Owners’ Business Processes; Products are protected from counterfeiting or infringement attempts. Maintain consumer confidence in products on the market. Maintaining brand reputation from low-quality counterfeit products. Macro Aspects; Increasing investor confidence, both domestic and foreign. The government can restore international trust in the seriousness of eradicating counterfeit products in Indonesia.   The Authority of DGCE DGCE has two schemes for the enforcement of Intellectual Property Law: Judicial Scheme that applies to all IP regimes: DGCE may impose a temporary suspension until a physical examination. However, DGCE’s position here is passive because it must wait for a temporary suspension order from the Commercial Court, where the Rights owner must carry out the initiative without any prior obligation to record it on the DGCE site. Ex-Officio Scheme for Trademarks and Copyrights: After the rights owner carries out the recordation process with the DGCE, the process of deterrence, temporary suspension, and physical examination can be carried out proactively by the DGCE.   Conditions for IP Customs Recordation at DGCE As the owner or right holder, you must submit a written application accompanied by the required documents by Minister of Finance Regulation (MFR) Number 40/pmk.04/2018 concerning Recording, Deterrence, Guarantee, Temporary Suspension, Monitoring and Evaluation in the Context of Controlling the Import or Export of Suspected Goods Constituting or Originating from the results of Violations of Intellectual Property Rights, to the Director of Action and Investigation at the DGCE Head Office and submitted electronically via the CEISA IPR application which can be accessed on the user portal.   Then you are required to prepare the following documents as attachments: Copy of Company Deed of Establishment and Latest Amendments Copy of Taxpayer Identification Number (NPWP) Copy of Trading Business License (SIUP) or Company Registration Certificate (TDP) Copy of Domicile Letter Copy of Trademark Certificate/ Registration or Copyright Recordation Letter issued by DGIP Information regarding product authenticity characteristics (mark, product appearance, packaging, distribution route, etc.) Statement letter as regulated in Appendix B – MFR No. 40/PMK.04/2018 Proof of transfer of rights (if rights are transferred) Information on parties granted the right to import/export Other information(s) required by DGCE   Involve Internal or External Examinator Apart from that, you must appoint one or more examiners who are experts on the product, who can come from within or outside the company, and who understand the Trademark or Copyright of the item to be recorded. If the goods recorded are related to the Trademark, the appointed Examiner(s) must understand the characteristics of product authenticity, such as the mark, goods, logo, product appearance, packaging, distribution, and marketing routes, as well as the number of products marketed in that area. However, suppose the item being recorded is related to Copyright. In that case, the examiner must understand the characteristics or specifications of the copyrighted work in the fields of science, art, literature, or related rights being created.   DGCE Research Procedure Approximately 30 Days All requirements will then undergo formal and material research by DGCE, including validating the data with DGIP. If this recordation is approved, it will be valid for 1 (one) year and can be extended. The entire recordation process is free of charge and only takes approximately 30 days. However, if you are a Trademark Owner or Copyright Holder who is a foreign company and domiciled abroad, you must have a business entity domiciled in Indonesia. DGCE has successfully disposed of more than one million pens, three million razors, 72 thousand more cosmetics, up to 160 rolls, and 890 cartons of sandpaper in the last four years. This number is not much because not many Trademark Owners and Copyright Holders take advantage of this feature. Therefore, if you own a product with a high cross-border risk, we recommend immediately recording it at DGCE.   If you still have questions or need further information regarding Intellectual Property Customs Recordation at the Directorate General of Customs and Excise, do not hesitate to…

AI-A-Threat-to-Our-Intellectual-Property

AI: A Threat to Our Intellectual Property?

Patent, Intellectual Property, Copyright

AI: A Threat to Our Intellectual Property? AI is a branch of computer science that deals with creating intelligent agents, which are systems that can reason, learn, and act autonomously. AI research has been highly successful in developing effective techniques for solving a wide range of problems, from self-driving cars, medical diagnosis, product recommendations, creating articles or songs based on voice collections, and processing very realistic images.   The sophistication of AI also makes the operation of an application no longer need to be done manually. For example, not by carrying out a series of actions or commands via menu clicks but simply by writing down the command, the AI will carry out the operation automatically. However, this sophistication is open to controversy because the basis of AI’s capabilities comes from a collection of data taken without permission from what is already available on the internet. This is undoubtedly dangerous for Intellectual Property.   In general, AI can harm Intellectual Property in the following 3 (three) ways:   1. AI Can Copy Your Work AI can be trained on a massive dataset of text, images, and code. This means that it can learn to reproduce your work, even if you have taken steps to protect it, such as copyrighting it.   2. AI Can Create Derivative Works AI can be used to create new works based on your original work. For example, an AI could be used to create a new painting based on your existing painting.   3. AI Can Use Your Work Without Attribution AI can be used to create new works that do not give you credit for your original work. This can happen if the AI is not properly trained or if the person using the AI does not understand the importance of attribution.   Recognizing the potential for Intellectual Property infringement that AI-based applications can carry, several countries have taken steps to prevent further disputes. Some of these countries are Japan and the European Union.   AI Copyright Protection for Japanese Artists Agency for Cultural Affairs Government of Japan) on May 30th, the statement “Regarding the relationship between AI and copyright” divides AI use into two stages: First Stage AI can be used for research and education purposes without requiring Copyright permission, but this has limitations if it exceeds recognized necessary limits or harms the Copyright holder’s interests.  Second Stage If AI-generated works are published or sold as reproductions and infringe Copyright laws, the Copyright holder has the right to take legal action, potentially leading to criminal penalties.   The document emphasizes strict penalties for Copyright Infringement through AI-generated works that are almost identical or clearly dependent on existing copyrighted works. Japan plans to raise awareness about these issues through seminars and collaborate with legal experts to proactively regulate commercial AI and protect the copyrighted works of Japanese artists and creators.   This approach signifies Japan’s commitment to shield copyrighted creative work, data, and materials from commercial AI use, potentially impacting AI developers and users aiming to exploit stolen art and creative works for profit. The move marks a potential turning point in the fight against Copyright Infringement by AI, providing more vital protection for artists’ Intellectual Property.   In the next article, we will discuss The Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) the European Union’s draft for AI regulation related to the protection of Intellectual Property.   If you need further information regarding the registration and protection of Intellectual Property in Indonesia and abroad, don’t hesitate to contact us via [email protected]. Sources: IBM PC Watch  

Enters-Public-Domain-Mickey-Mouse-Stars-in-3-Horror-Films-affa-global

Enters Public Domain – Mickey Mouse Stars in 3 Horror Films?

Intellectual Property, Trademark, Copyright

Enters Public Domain – Mickey Mouse Stars in 3 Horror Films? Mainstream news channels are busy reporting that Mickey Mouse, The Walt Disney Company’s mascot, has entered the Public Domain as of January 1, 2024. As a result, many parties are immediately looking for their fortune by presenting this black mouse in various media. Uniquely, they all have a horror theme!   1. The Vanishing of S.S. Willie Straight released on January 2, 2024, on the Night Signal Entertainment YouTube channel, this is a short film less than 10 minutes long, which assumes that the film “Steamboat Willie” published in 1928, the first film to feature the character Mickey Mouse, is an actual event.   Mickey, Minnie, and other animal characters are displayed in realistic form, covered in retro visuals, but with different names. The horror side is that their story ends tragically at the bottom of the river, contrasting with the cheerful original animated version.   2. Mickey’s Mouse Trap Also released on the same day is a 2-minute trailer for the film, which will be released in March 2024. This time, the story is about a serial killer who wears a Mickey Mouse-like mask and operates in an amusement park.   3. Steamboat Willie The third horror film to utilize Public Domain Mickey is the work of Director Steven LaMorte, who previously directed “The Mean One” (2022), a horror-comedy film inspired by “The Grinch” (2018). Steven admitted that filming of Steamboat Willie will take place this spring, and the concept remains a horror-comedy in the style of The Mean One. Steve confirmed to the media that his work would not violate the law because it would not use the name Mickey Mouse but Steamboat Willie.   4. Infestation: Origins Lastly, Mickey is in a PC game that up to four people can play. Here, you can play as a rat exterminator set in the 80s. But then, you are chased by a monster resembling Mickey Mouse! This game produced by Nightmare Forges can now be ordered on the Steam website, but the official release date has yet to be announced.   What is Public Domain? A work or Creation, including animated films, can be protected by Copyright. Then there is the Copyright Law, which regulates the validity period of Economic Rights, which is a reference for whether we still have to obtain permission from the Creator or Copyright Holder for a Work. If the validity period has passed, the work has entered the Public Domain, and the public can use it freely without asking permission from the Creator.   Why 95 Years Later? The Copyright Law in the United States stipulates that a work’s validity period is during the Creator’s life plus seventy years after the Creator dies. However, this regulation was only applied to all works published starting January 1, 1978. Meanwhile, Steamboat Willie was already present 50 years earlier. That’s why the film still has 95 years of Economic Rights and ends on December 31, 2023. Finally, Steamboat Willie only entered the Public Domain as of January 1, 2024.   Now Everyone is Free to Use Mickey Mouse? Certainly not! Because the only thing in the Public Domain is Mickey Mouse in Steamboat Willie: the Black and White Mickey without gloves. What also needs to be remembered is that as a character, two types of Intellectual Property (KI) are attached to Mickey Mouse: Copyright and Trademark.   If a copyright has an expiration validity period, then a trademark can be renewed every ten years. Mickey Mouse is a registered Trademark still owned by The Walt Disney Company. That’s why none of the works above that use Public Domain Mickey use the name “Mickey Mouse.” They consciously did not use this name to avoid legal disputes. They only dare to use “Mickey” or “Steamboat Willie,” common names not registered by anyone.   So, even though Steamboat Willie has entered the Public Domain, that doesn’t mean you are free to produce and/or sell products that contain colored versions of images or words of Mickey Mouse. The point is that Public Domain doesn’t necessarily make your own Mickey Mouse.   Mickey Mouse Still Owned by The Walt Disney Company Amid widespread news related to the Public Domain, the role of the media is needed to educate people so as not to create new problems. Because incomplete reporting can make many parties who are less aware of IP, including SMEs, subject to warning letters from Disney’s lawyers. They join in on the hype by producing products depicting colored versions of Mickey Mouse and containing the word without realizing the potential for Copyright and Trademark violations.   Remember that Walt Disney is a big company in the IP business. They understand the ins and outs of Intellectual Property law. Apart from that, they also continue to update their IP-based characters and their source of income. That is the only way the validity period of Economic Rights in Copyright can continue to be extended. Steamboat Willy is only one of tens of thousands of works featuring IP-based characters, a source of income for the Walt Disney Company. Missing one will not affect its revenue, which since 2022 will be above USD 80 billion per year.   From Walt Disney, we learn that creating original characters, if managed well, will be more profitable and provide long-term benefits. Instead of making imitation works that take advantage of the momentary hype. The public will also see it as a cheap work or a parody of no quality.   Should you need further information about Public Domain, Copyright, or other Intellectual Property management, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected]. Sources:  Coming Soon Variety