Indonesia Extends the Trademark Non-Use Period from 3 to 5 Consecutive Years - AFFA IPR

Indonesia Extends the Trademark Non-Use Period from 3 to 5 Consecutive Years

Intellectual Property, Trademark

On March 31, 2020, Indonesia officially entered the COVID-19 pandemic period with the enactment of Government Regulation Number 21 of 2020 concerning Large-Scale Social Restrictions in the Framework of Accelerating the Handling of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (Covid-I9). After facing various challenges, both for the community, the business world, and the government, the pandemic status in Indonesia was officially lifted on June 21, 2023, and changed to endemic based on the Presidential Decree of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2023 concerning the Determination of the End of the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Status in Indonesia. In post-pandemic recovery efforts, the government prioritizes economic recovery by paying attention to the needs of Small, and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).  Taking into account the specific conditions of the Indonesian economy, which hugely relies on SMEs that have limited capital and can change at any time and force majeure, through Decision Number 144/PUU-XXI/2023, which was read out at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, July 30, 2024, an adjustment was made to the time limit for Trademark non-use period from three to five consecutive years. This case began when Ricky Thio faced a Cancellation Action for his Trademark based on Article 74 of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Trademark Law) at the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court with case number 28/Pdt.Sus HKI/Merek/2023/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst from Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. wanted the cancellation of the Trademark “” with registration number IDM000553432 because it was considered not to have been used for three consecutive years. According to Ricky Thio, this situation raises uncertainty in the Trademark protection provided by the government, which has the potential to make SMEs hesitate to register their Trademarks.   Timeframe for Filing a New Trademark Cancellation Action In Decision Number 144/PUU-XXI/2023, the Constitutional Court saw the importance of adjusting the non-use time limit to 5 (five) consecutive years. This is closely related to the time limit for filing a Trademark Invalidation, which is 5 (five) years from the date of Trademark registration, as stated in Article 77 paragraph (1) of the Trademark Law. Although cancellation and invalidation are different things, the regulation is placed in the Chapter “Cancellation and Invalidation of Trademarks” in the Trademark Law.   Thus, without intending to ignore the tendency of countries that adhere to the civil law system, the adjustment of the time limit for non-use of registered Trademarks to 5 (five) years is to provide justice for all registered Trademark owners so that it does not conflict with the Principle of National Treatment and is in line with the provisions contained in Trademark Invalidation. Based on all the legal considerations above, the Applicant’s argument questioning the unconstitutionality of Article 74 paragraph (1) of the Trademark Law, especially the phrase “3 (three) years” is legally justified. In Decision Number 144/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court partially granted Ricky Thio’s request so that the changes to the article related to the deletion of the Trademark due to the Decision are as follows: Before the Constitutional Court Decision After the Constitutional Court Decision Article 74 paragraph (1) Trademark Law The cancellation of a registered Mark may also be submitted by a third party who has an interest in the form of a lawsuit to the Commercial Court based on the ground that the Mark has not been used for 3 (three) consecutive years in the trade of goods and/or services from the registration date or the last use. Article 74 paragraph (1) Trademark Law The cancellation of a registered Mark may also be submitted by a third party who has an interest in the form of a lawsuit to the Commercial Court based on the ground that the Mark has not been used for 5 (five) consecutive years in the trade of goods and/or services from the registration date or the last use. Article 74 paragraph (2) Trademark Law The reasons for an non-used Mark as referred to in paragraph (1) are invalid in the event of: a. import ban; b. temporary prohibition that is related to the permit for the distribution of goods that use the relevant Mark or a decision from an authorized party; or c. other similar prohibitions that are established with Regulation of the Government. Article 74 paragraph (2) Trademark Law The reasons for an non-used Mark as referred to in paragraph (1) are invalid in the event of: a. import ban; b. temporary prohibition that is related to the permit for the distribution of goods that use the relevant Mark or a decision from an authorized party; or c. other similar prohibitions, including in conditions of force majeure that are established with Regulation of the Government.   Force Majeure can be Used for Exceptions Force Majeure can be a legitimate reason for Trademark owners who cannot use their registered Trademark or cannot run their business normally. The Constitutional Court (MK), in Decision Number 144/PUU-XXI/2023, emphasized the importance of this exception. Force Majeure generally refers to events or effects that cannot be predicted or controlled, such as natural disasters (floods, hurricanes, earthquakes) or human actions (riots, strikes, war) that prevent someone from fulfilling their obligations. In this decision, pandemic conditions such as COVID-19 are considered Force Majeure, which justifies an exception for Trademark owners who experience difficulties using and producing their Trademarks.  The consequence of Decision Number 144/PUU-XXI/2023 is that the provisions of the Trademark Law must be adjusted to the decision. This is, of course, in line with the explanation of Article 10, paragraph (1) of Law. No. 07 of 2020 Third Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court in conjunction with the Stipulation of Government Regulation instead of Law Number 1 of 2013 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court to Become a Law in conjunction with Law No. 8 of 2011 concerning Amendments to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court in conjunction with Law Number 24 of…

FAQs: The Registration and Use of Trademark in Indonesia - AFFA IPR

Frequently Asked Questions About the Registration and Use of Trademark in Indonesia

Trademark, Industrial Design

Ownership of Marks Q: Who may apply for registration?   A: Since the Indonesian Trademark Law adopts the first to file principle, in general any individual, organisation or company can file for a Trademark Registration. However, the Trademark Law also regulates Trademark Registrations that are filed in bad faith. Article 21 paragraph (3) of the Trademark Law stipulates that an application is refused if it is submitted by an applicant in bad faith. While the implementation of this article during substantive examination holds true for some applications that have similarities with the already established and Well-known Marks, in practice it is quite challenging to determine whether an application is filed in bad faith or not. A bad-faith application that later matured to registration can always be invalidated at the Court of Commerce as regulated under article 77 paragraph (2) of the Trademark Law, which stipulates the following:   “The lawsuit for invalidation may be in unlimited time if there is bad faith and/or the relevant Mark contravenes the State ideology, laws and regulations, morality, religions, decency, and public order.”   Scope of Trademark Q: What may and may not be protected and registered as a Trademark?   A: By definition of article 1 of the Trademark Law, a Mark is any sign capable of being represented graphically in the form of drawings, logos, names, words, letters, numerals, colour arrangement, in two and;or three-dimensional shape, sounds, holograms or combination of two or more of those elements to distinguish goods or services produced by a person or legal entity in trading goods or services.   Given the definition above, then the Law acknowledges two types of trademarks, namely traditional and non-traditional marks.   Unregistered Trademarks Q: Can Trademark Rights be established without registration?   A: Indonesia is a jurisdiction that adopts the first to file principle. Hence, a prior use itself is not sufficient to establish rights in the country.   Famous Foreign Trademarks Q: Is a famous foreign Trademark afforded protection even if not used domestically? If so, must the foreign Trademark be famous domestically? What proof is required? What protection is provided?   A: A Trademark can only be protected if it is registered in Indonesia, regardless of its fame. However, the Indonesian Trademark Law has a mechanism to somewhat protect a famous foreign Trademark from bad faith registrations by other parties. Should another party try to file a malicious Trademark application that is identical or similar to a famous foreign Trademark, such application will be rejected on the basis of article 21 paragraph (1) b and c, which stipulates the following:   “An Application is refused if the Mark is substantively similar to or identical with a well-known Mark of other parties for similar goods and/or services OR a well-known Mark of other parties for different goods and/or services complying with certain requirements.”   The issue is then shifted to what constitutes as a famous Trademark. Article 18 of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation No. 67 2016 concerning Trademark Registration Decree of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property in the Field of Trademarks has set out the criteria of what makes a Trademark famous, such as: the level of knowledge or public recognition against the Mark in the business field that concerned as a well-known mark; the volume of sales of goods and/or services and benefits derived from using the Mark by the owner; the market share controlled by the Mark in relation to the circulation of goods and/or services in the community; the area of use of the Mark; the period of use of the Mark; the intensity and promotion of the Mark, including value of investment used for the promotion; the number of Trademark applications and registration around the world; the success rate of law enforcement, in particular regarding the recognition of the Mark as a well-known Mark by an authorised institution; or the valuation of the Mark because of the reputation and quality assurance of goods and/or services protected by the Mark.   However, a well-known mark that is famous abroad does not always necessarily have the same level of fame in Indonesia. This raises the issue as to whether the Trademark owner should also establish its fame in Indonesia before taking any action against other parties.   The Benefits of Registration Q: What are the benefits of registration?   A: Pursuant to the Trademark Law, the right on a Mark means the Exclusive Right granted by the state to a registered Mark Owner for a definite period to use his or her mark or authorise others to do otherwise. Hence, by registering a Trademark in Indonesia, the owner can establish its legal right should there is an infringement by another party. This includes, but is not limited to, requesting an e-commerce listing takedown notice, sending a cease and desist letter, filing a police report for the criminal aspect of the infringement, seeking damages at the Court of Commerce, issuing licensing rights, filing injunctions and conducting a Customs Recordal before Indonesian Customs.   Filing Procedure and Documentation Q: What documentation is needed to file a Trademark Application? What rules govern the representation of the Mark in the application? Is electronic filing available? Are trademark searches available or required before filing? If so, what procedures and fees apply?   A: A Trademark search is strongly suggested for anyone who wishes to file a Trademark Application in Indonesia. The search report will identify potential hazards and tumbling blocks to an otherwise successful registration process. Assuming the search report gives the all-clear for continuing the application process, the applicant shall prepare the following: name of the applicant; address; list of goods and services; and the representation of the Mark to be filed, which can be in a form of wordmark, logo or non-traditional Marks.   Once the above information has been provided, then we will prepare the following documents to be signed by the client: power of attorney; and statement…

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

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

Intellectual Property, Trademark

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

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…

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].

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  

Unveiling-Copyright-Ownership-in-the-Film-Industry-Legal-Perspectives-affa-global

Unveiling Copyright Ownership in the Film Industry: Legal Perspectives

Intellectual Property, Copyright1 Comment

Unveiling Copyright Ownership in the Film Industry: Legal Perspectives There is still often a question among the public about who owns the copyright for a large-scale work, such as a movie. Because movies, especially feature films, involve many derivative works and other interrelated supporting works. Starting from scripts, background music, movie posters, and even a game specifically made to promote the movie.   So, who owns the copyright of all these works? Does the Director hold everything? Producer? Or both of them?   Definition of Copyright According to Article 1 of Law No. 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright (Copyright Law), what is meant by Copyright is the Exclusive Right of the Creator, which arises automatically based on declarative principles after a work is realized in actual form without reducing restrictions by the provisions of statutory regulations.   From the definition above, there are two essential emphases of Copyright as follows: 1. Exclusive Rights, consisting of: Economic Rights The Exclusive Right of the Creator or Copyright Holder to obtain economic benefits from the Work Moral Rights Rights that are eternally inherent in the Creator 2. Arises automatically based on Declarative Principles    No recording or registration is required to obtain protection.   Then, a Creator is a person or several people who produce a creation individually or together. Movies in the Copyright Law are referred to as Cinematography as mentioned in Article 40 Paragraph (1) letter (m), which means moving images, including documentary movies, advertising movies, reportages, or story films made with scenarios, including cartoon or animation films.   Cinematography works can be created on celluloid tape, video tape, video disc, optical disc, and/or other media that allows it to be shown in cinemas, big screens, television, or other media.   Copyright Holders of Movies/ Cinematography Works In general, 3 (three) parties are referred to as Copyright Holders, namely: Copyright Owner/Creator The party who legally receives the rights from the Creator Another party who receives further rights from the party who received the rights   However, if we talk about specific copyright holders for movie-related products, the details are as follows: Movie Related Products Types of Creation Notes Original/ raw/ in-editing process/ final movie. Copyright for Cinematographic Works Creator: Director Copyright Holder: Film Producer Script/ Story Copyright for Written Works Creator: Script/Story Writer Book – If the film is adapted from a book. Copyright for Books/Writing Works Creator: Book Author Adaptation Copyright Holder: Film Producer Book – If the film is adapted into a book. Copyright for Books/Writing Works Creator: Book Author Adaptation Copyright Holder: Book Publisher Background Music (BGM), scoring, soundtrack, sound effects, or other related music works. Copyright of Songs and/or Music Creator: Song Creator (can be assigned to Music Publisher) Related Rights: Musicians, Singers, and Record Producers Movie posters Copyright for Drawing/Painting Artworks Creator: Poster Designer Movie Exhibitions/ advertising/ promotions (photography, banners, etc.) Copyright for Photographic Works, Portraits, Databases, Video Games, Computer Programs, Appearances in the form of Written Works Creator: Photographer, Designer, and Game/Computer Programmer.   Knowing who the creator of the creations above is, if you are involved in them, especially if your position is the creator, you are entitled to Exclusive Rights to cinematographic works, valid for up to 50 (fifty) years from the first announcement.   Benefits of Copyright Recordation Also, please ensure your name is recorded in the Creation Recordation Letter issued by the Minister and in the General Register of Works, which serves as initial proof of ownership of a work and is substantial evidence in court. Even though it is not mandatory, Copyright recordation is beneficial for the following 2 (two) things: Prevent misuse of recorded works and simultaneously prevent losses arising from abuse of said works. Make it easier for Copyright owners to claim royalties for recorded Copyright licenses.   Should you have further questions regarding Copyright and its registration in Indonesia and abroad, do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected]. Sources: Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright (Copyright Law) Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP)  

Tips-for-Registering-Holograms-as-Trademarks-in-Indonesia-affa-global

Tips for Registering Holograms as Trademarks in Indonesia

Intellectual Property, Trademark

Tips for Registering Holograms as Trademarks in Indonesia Besides Sounds and 3D objects, Holograms can be registered as Trademarks because they are equally recognized as Non-Conventional/Non-Traditional Trademarks. But what kind of Holograms can be registered as Trademarks? Do you interpret the meaning of this Hologram in the same way? Allow us to delve into the discussion.   Legal Basis For Hologram Marks In Indonesia Indonesia recognizes the existence of Hologram Marks through the elaboration of the definition of Trademark as stated in Article 1 Number 1 of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications (the Trademark Law), as follows:   A Trademark is a sign that can be displayed graphically in the form of an image, logo, name, word, letter, number, or color arrangement in 2 (two) dimensions and/or 3 (three) dimensions, sound, hologram, or a combination of 2 (two) or more of these elements to differentiate goods and/or services produced by individuals or legal entities in goods and/or services trading activities.   For a Hologram Mark to be registered, Article 4 of the Trademark Law and Article 3 of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation No.67/2016 require the attachment of a Trademark label in the form of a visual display from various sides.   This visual appearance from various sides is essential because the definition of a Hologram, according to the ‘Great Dictionary of the Indonesian Language,’ is a colored image with three dimensions on a piece of paper so that it appears as if it has arisen. So, the critical point that needs to be paid attention to for Hologram Trademarks is its embossed impression, even though it is flat, and therefore has a different color reflection effect from each side. That’s why the visual description of each side is essential and must be accurate.   Sample of Description on a Hologram Trademark For example, the Hologram Mark registered for PT. PEGADAIAN (Persero) with Application Number JID2020022485. Its appearance is only a circle, but if we look at it from various sides, an emerging effect shows the words and logos contained in it, with different effect colors appearing on each side.   So the description is, “Holograms have five image perspectives. The Front Image displays the entire hologram image (including words and logos). The Top and Right images show the words and logos in various colors. The Bottom and Left images show the words and logos in blue and purple.”   Examples of Other Hologram Marks Registered in Indonesia PT. PANCA PRATAMA INDONESIA GEN TAMEO IMAN SANTOSA Application Number: DID2022083769 Application Number: DID2022104879 Application Number: DID2020060873   From the examples of registered Hologram Marks above, it appears that words, logos, and even facial photos can be submitted as Hologram Marks, provided they do not conflict with administrative and substantive requirements. Furthermore, assuming that the application does not encounter opposition or rejection, it will only take 10-13 months from the application to obtaining the registration number.   So, have you imagined the Hologram Mark that you want to register for your business?   Should you have further questions regarding the requirements and registration of Hologram Marks in Indonesia or abroad, do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected]. Source: Directorate General of Intellectual Property

5-Common-Types-of-IP-Violation-in-Indonesian-E-Commerce-affa-global

5 Common Types of IP Violation in Indonesian E-Commerce

Intellectual Property

5 Common Types of IP Violation in Indonesian E-Commerce The presence of e-commerce has changed the shopping habits of Indonesians. Statista Market Insights data predicts that users by the end of this year will reach 196.47 million, or an increase of more than 22 million since 2022.  The Central Bank of the Republic of Indonesia also stated that the value of e-commerce transactions in 2022 will reach IDR 476.3 trillion. This number is predicted to continue to increase because active e-commerce users in Indonesia still account for only around 30% of transactions in cyberspace.   By now, opening an e-commerce site or app is the easiest way to compare the cheapest product we want. However, with all this convenience, you must still be aware of the potential for Intellectual Property violations in e-commerce. You need to remember that even though the platform organizers have tried to carry out sorting even with AI, it will only be helpful if you, who have self-screening capabilities, are easily tempted by the low prices of products that should be expensive.   Counterfeit goods are not the only potential for Intellectual Property (IP) violations in e-commerce; there are at least 5 (five) types of IP violations, which we can describe as follows:   1. Sale of Counterfeit Goods Even when selling fake goods, the method is more sophisticated, not blatantly using names or products with very different qualities. a. Photos taken from the official site; Suppose the seller is not an official store but uses an official photo. In that case, you should immediately be suspicious and use your right to ask for some actual photos of the product before making a transaction.   b. Preloved with invoice; If the seller uses pictures that show an invoice with the product, like pretending it was purchased from an official store, please don’t hesitate to ask for some photos of the actual product before making a transaction.   c. Normal price for a counterfeit product; If you are a collector of specific brands, you must know the shape, color, or placement of the official logo on the product. You may also know how many variants are produced for this season, including the look of the limited variants. So you won’t be deceived when you find a product with a different color, which shouldn’t be available in the market, even though it is the same price as the original product.   d. Using the word ORI or SUPER ORI or HIGH GRADE; The word “ori,” which means original, should only be used for authentic products. However, sellers of counterfeit goods have recently used this word to attract buyers. Moreover, if the inclusion of the word “ori” is coupled with the price of the item being much cheaper, you should be suspicious of its authenticity.   e. Cheap products directly from the factory. It would be best if you were also wary of this description when you find a cheaper good on e-commerce. Only official stores or distributors can do this if the product comes from Indonesia and gets wholesale price benefits. Another possibility is stolen goods that are not complete or of bad quality. Are you sure you still want to buy something like that?   2. Promoting Product Without Verification This type is the same as in the first category; the difference is that it involves the lure of a big discount, which results in the price being much lower than the market, but it is not sold by official stores or distributors (which in the same time are not providing the same promotions). Apart from the possibility that what is being sold is not a genuine product, it could also be that the product is smuggled without paying official import taxes, with questionable completeness and quality.   3. Selling Irresponsibly Through E-Commerce Sometimes, some health and beauty products are sold using a “direct selling” scheme, and sale activities via e-commerce are prohibited. Because their exclusive products are only sold through direct selling methods to downlines/registered members. So direct sales to the public (non-members) are a violation because they destroy the agreed business scheme and membership system.   4. SOPs for IP Violations in E-Commerce Are Not Yet Standardized Even though e-commerce has acted as an intermediary that will hold funds from buyers and return them if there is a problem with the goods, there are still loopholes that allow transactions to be completed even though the goods have a problem. For example, the buyer forgets to unbox with a video or only immediately checks the item’s authenticity after the deadline. If you are caught in this problem, the procedures of complaint from each e-commerce are not standardized. The absence of customer service that truly understands the situation makes this even more difficult. Especially if the customer service is entirely automated without involving humans.   5. Borderless E-Commerce Platform With the increasingly open cross-border international trade through e-commerce, you must understand the risks of purchasing goods outside Indonesia. If you find lower prices for goods, even though they are shipped from abroad, and you know that there is an official distributor in Indonesia, your vigilance needs to be increased even more. Because there could be an IP violation in the form of distribution without permission/violating the law/not paying import tax, which is not impossible, within the time frame of the order process, the police arrest the seller in the country of origin, and you will not get the goods you want.   All of the IP violation practices above harm you as a buyer and significantly impact the country. These losses include: Negative Reputation of Indonesian From the latest Priority Watch List (PWL) 2023 report, released by the United States Trade Representative (USTR), Indonesia, along with Argentina, Chile, India, Russia, China, and Venezuela, is still on the investment blocklist because it is prone to piracy practices. In particular, the Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy 2022 report, also released by USTR, lists several local e-commerce sites…