Various Intellectual Properties in Football - AFFA IPR

Various Intellectual Properties in Football

Intellectual Property1 Comment

At the beginning of May 2024, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly declared May 25 as the World Football Day. This date was chosen to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first football competition at the 1924 Olympics held in Paris, France. The UN hopes this day will always be celebrated as a day of world unity, which can unite cultural differences and socio-economic barriers.   As the most widely played sport, Football also involves a lot of Intellectual Property, with a turnover of up to trillions of dollars. This includes Trademarks, Patents, Industrial Designs, Copyrights, Trade Secrets, Domain Names, and License Agreements. Below, we describe some of the Intellectual Property we most often encounter in Football.   Trademark   Every competition and tournament certainly has a name. We know the FIFA World Cup, UEFA Champions League, English Premier League (EPL), and Asian Football Confederation (AFC). These names are synonymous with quality and entertaining games. Most importantly, they are all registered Trademarks that unauthorized parties cannot use arbitrarily. You cannot just produce and sell t-shirts with the UEFA Champions League logo without permission from the Union des Associations Européennes de Football.    Trademarks in football are not only related to competition; several names of top players have also been registered as Trademarks. For example, “CR7” belongs to Cristiano Ronaldo, “Leo Messi” belongs to Lionel Messi, and even Mbappe’s celebration pose. You might also want to read: Kylian Mbappé Has Trademarked His Iconic Goal Celebration – Why Is It Possible?   Patent An innovation that cannot be separated from modern football is the Video Assistant Referee (VAR). With this technology, referee decisions on the field can be more accurate, not controversial. VAR, whose patent is owned by Hawk-Eye Innovations (part of Sony), was first used at the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia. With VAR, the referee can quickly check whether a goal is legal, a player is caught offside, or cameras from many sides cover other violations.   As a Patent, FIFA pays royalties to Hawk-Eye Innovations for its use. Hawk-Eye also maximizes its income by marketing this technology to 90 countries worldwide. However, with a cost per season of around USD 6.2 million, not all leagues worldwide can afford to use it.   The Patent for football also includes the ball itself. In almost every World Cup event, the ball is presented with more sophisticated technology than before, which is expected to increase the accuracy of the players’ shots.   Industrial Design   Like the ball in football, the shoes players use may contain patent-protected innovations. But if not, the shoes and all the clothes we see are registered as Industrial Design.   Football jerseys or costumes are one of a football club or team’s biggest sources of income. For diehard fans, wearing a jersey when watching a match or even going to the mall is a matter of pride and proof of their support for their favorite team.   However, jerseys are also among the Intellectual Property most often pirated. As true fans, of course, we can choose to only buy the original because only then is the money we spend commensurate with the quality we get, and most importantly, the income will go to the club we support.   Copyright   League and match materials, images, promotions, or other content related to football broadcasts fall into the Copyright category. Each match is owned by a different owner, who also sells broadcast rights to TV stations in each region.   These Copyright holders even opened a bidding scheme to give the highest buyers the opportunity to obtain the Broadcasting Rights. Because it costs a lot of money to get the rights, it is understandable that the Broadcasting Rights holders are very protective of the material they own. They don’t let other parties broadcast it in the regions they already cover, or prosecution will be carried out.   Trade Secret   Playing strategies, including technical details of formations and other confidential information, can be categorized as Trade Secrets. These secrets give each team a competitive advantage by not revealing certain important information to the public or rival teams. All team members, including the technical and health trainers, are bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).   Domain Name   The Domain Name associated with each league and competition is very important in maintaining its online presence and marketing. Fifa.com, uefa.com, and the-afc.com have been registered to prevent cybersquatting and Trademark misuse. The fifa.com domain, for example, is available in various languages to make it easier to access and search for the latest information and to disseminate official information to all media and football fans throughout the world.   License Agreement   Licensing Agreements may include Trademark Licenses to produce and sell merchandise, mobile phone applications, video games, and more. Game developers who want to present a team with the appropriate club name or accurate appearance of the players have to pay significant royalties to FIFA.   Finally, in organizing football, we must be aware of and involve all related Intellectual Properties (IPs). In fact, IP is the financial generator in every activity. Therefore, don’t forget to involve IPs in every tournament you run and reap the benefits. Should you need further information regarding Licensing Agreements, Trademark registration, Patents, Industrial Designs, Copyrights, or other Intellectual Property, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected].

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].

Kylian Mbappe has Trademarked His Iconic Goal Celebration - Why is it Possible? - AFFA IPR

Kylian Mbappé has Trademarked His Iconic Goal Celebration – Why is it Possible?

Intellectual Property, Trademark1 Comment

Since 2017, Kylian Mbappé has contributed 170+ goals for the Paris Saint-Germain football club. Since then, Mbappé has introduced a celebration pose with crossed arms clamped in his armpits after he scores. Apparently, the pose was registered as a Trademark in the same year and will be protected at least until August 2027.   In theory, since 2008, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has recognized the existence of ‘New Types of Marks,’ which divides Trademarks into two types, namely Visible and Non-Visible. For Visible Marks, apart from the various commonly recognized Marks such as names, logos, and holograms, Motion or Multimedia Signs, Position Marks, and Gesture Marks are also recognized. Therefore, this celebratory pose, which includes gestures, can indeed be registered as a Trademark. Source: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)   As a logo, there is a classification system that regulates it to make applications more accessible, as well as providing ample opportunity for each person or company logo to be registered in various appropriate class categories, thereby minimizing monopolistic practices. The classification system is the Vienna Class, which divides logos into 29 categories, 144 divisions, 775 main sections, and 1,112 auxiliary sections. Mbappé’s celebration pose is included in Vienna Class 2.1.8 which includes logos for “Acrobats, athletes, dancers, jugglers, nude men, men practising sports (except those already included in Vienna Classes 2.1.2, 2.1.12, 2.1.14, 2.1.20 and 2.1.21).”   It should be noted that the Indonesian Trademark Office (DGIP) has not adopted the Vienna Class for Figurative Mark, but this does not mean that the Mark cannot be registered in Indonesia. Please take a look at the explanation at the end of this article.   Why Does It Need to be Trademarked?   From the start, Mbappé understood that his unique pose could be registered as a Trademark. Dozens of years earlier, David Beckham, the legendary wing midfielder from Manchester United, had registered his cross-passing pose as a Trademark. The difference is that the logo registered by Beckham is a figure that resembles a human (Vienna Class 4.5.5), not a black-and-white photo of himself as registered by Mbappé. Source: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)   However, just like Beckham, Mbappé also hopes that this Trademark can be used commercially for various goods and/or services of his own. With global achievements and 113 million Instagram followers from all over the world, it is not difficult to imagine that whatever Mbappé sells, especially those with his unique celebration logo, will make a profit. Of course, this profit does not only come to Mbappé but also to manufacturers of clothes, textiles, toys, video games, umbrellas, bags, jewelry, perfume, cosmetics, and even toothbrushes who are interested in getting the license.   Negative Impact on the Athlete’s Image?   If a Trademark is already registered, commercial use of the mark becomes the exclusive right of the mark owner or another party who has officially obtained permission. So, suppose another party uses it without permission. In that case, a civil lawsuit can be filed in Indonesia, or criminal liability can be demanded, with a maximum fine of 2 (two) billion Rupiah or a maximum imprisonment of 5 (five) years.   From the perspective of the fan community, the size of this fine can be scary because a logo that was previously very proud, used as wallpaper on a cellphone, laptop, sticker on a vehicle, or poster in the work space could become incriminating evidence. Will Mbappé’s lawyers or legal team sue and imprison the Fans?   The answer is, of course, no. Because they will mainly pursue pirates who produce, distribute, or sell counterfeit products without permission, this effort is undoubtedly very positive for fans who are truly present to provide support to their athletes. Because the money spent will actually be income for the athletes, not put into the pockets of the pirates, it’s more expensive but legal, you get quality goods, and you’re prouder.   Other Athletes Who Have Done It, Too.   The practice of commercializing athletes’ profiles as Trademarks has been going on for a long time; for example, basketball player Michael Jordan, golfer Jack Nicklaus, and sprinter Usain Bolt are still loved by their fans. With the ownership of this celebration logo, Mbappé is recorded as having 7 registered Trademark variants at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), of which 1 is a Trademark bearing his name, 2 Trademarks contain his favorite slogan, 2 are his logo, and 2 more are a combination of logo and Mbappé’s name.   Lionel Messi (6 Marks) and Cristiano Ronaldo (5 Marks) are other footballers with many active registered Trademarks. However, when David Beckham was still active, he had more Trademarks. Namely, he had 8 registered Trademarks for the logo, name, and several variants of his name with a combination of his back numbers for various products and foundations that he owns. Unfortunately, currently, only one Trademark is still active: BECKHAM.   Can this Trademark be Registered in Indonesia? Referring to Article 1 point 1 of Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications (the Trademark Law), a Trademark is a sign that can be displayed graphically in the form of an image, logo, name, word, letter, number, color arrangement, in the form of 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.   Referring to the Trademark definition, the Trademark submitted by Kylian Mbappé can also be registered in Indonesia as long as no identical or similar Mark has been previously submitted by another party, as regulated in Article 21 of the Trademark Law. Are you interested in registering your name or favorite pose as a Trademark in Indonesia or abroad? Contact us directly via email: [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].

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  

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…