TKDN-Related Sales Restrictions: How Can IP Play a Role in Enhancing its Composition - AFFA IPR

TKDN-Related Sales Restrictions: How Can IP Play a Role in Enhancing Its Composition

Intellectual Property

The Indonesian government recently banned the distribution of the iPhone 16 due to its failure to meet the required Domestic Component Level (TKDN) threshold of 35%. This policy serves as a stern reminder to all local and international manufacturers of the importance of contributing to the development of domestic industries.   However, the iPhone 16 is not the only TKDN-related issue in the spotlight. Previously, the tactical vehicle Maung Pindad, used by “RI 1” (the President), became a success story in fulfilling TKDN requirements. According to Chief of Presidential Staff Anto Mukti Putranto, while 30% of Maung’s components were sourced from Korean and German manufacturers, namely SsangYong and Mercedes-Benz, the remainder was developed locally.   So, who is obligated to comply with TKDN regulations? How can Intellectual Property (IP) certificates help meet these requirements? Let’s dive into the details.   Legal Basis of TKDN   TKDN refers to the percentage of goods or services derived from domestic components in a product, service, or combination of both. This policy is governed by Minister of Industry Regulation No. 16 of 2011, which outlines the rules and methods for calculating TKDN. At least three parties are required to comply with TKDN regulations:   Electronics and Telecommunications Manufacturers: Products like smartphones with 4G/5G technology must have a minimum TKDN value of 35%, as stated in Minister of Industry Regulation No. 22 of 2020 on Electronics and Telematics TKDN Calculation Guidelines. Goods/Services Providers for Government Projects: Under Presidential Regulation No. 16 of 2018 on Government Procurement, all government-procured goods/services must prioritize products with high TKDN values. Strategic Industries: For example, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are regulated under Minister of Industry Regulation No. 6 of 2022, which specifies development roadmaps, specifications, and TKDN calculation requirements.   Intellectual Property & TKDN Calculation Framework   Factors influencing a product’s TKDN value include:   Type of Product and/or Service: Different products have unique parameters and calculation weights, such as manufactured goods, technology, or services. Local Components Used: The greater the proportion of raw materials or services sourced domestically, the higher the TKDN value.  Contribution of Certification and Local Innovation: Intellectual Property certificates, SNI (Indonesian National Standard), and Halal certification can increase the domestic component value.   It can be concluded that owning IP Certificates, such as Patents, Trademarks, and Industrial Designs, allows businesses to count these as part of the Domestic Component (KDN).   The varying needs of industries and technical specifications result in differing TKDN standards. For instance, electronic products like smartphones require a minimum TKDN value of 35%, whereas strategic industrial products like electric vehicles involve more complex parameters, including design and testing.    Specifically for the iPhone, Apple previously held a TKDN certificate, but its validity period has expired. To renew it, the government still deems the latest investment made in educational facilities insufficient. Apple would need to establish larger manufacturing plants and research development centers to meet the requirement.   Requirements for Meeting TKDN Standards   To obtain TKDN certification, businesses must fulfill the following requirements: Company Legal Documents: Articles of incorporation and business licenses. Intellectual Property Certificates: Relevant patents, trademarks, or industrial designs. Quality Management System: Certification such as ISO 9001:2015. Proof of Local Components: Cooperation contracts with local suppliers or invoices for locally sourced raw materials. Verification Body Appointment Letter: Only independent bodies designated by the Ministry of Industry can conduct TKDN verification.   TKDN as a Strategic National Policy   From its requirements and objectives, TKDN is not just a regulation but a strategic national policy to strengthen domestic industries. Similar policies exist in other countries, such as: Buy American Act in the United States; Industrial and Regional Benefits in Canada; Local Content Policy in Brazil; Local Content Requirement in the European Union; Make in India in India; and China’s Indigenous Innovation Policy in China.   This long-term policy to enhance Indonesian products’ competitiveness in local and global markets deserves our full support.   Does your product meet the required TKDN standards? Don’t hesitate to consult us about registering your Intellectual Property as part of TKDN compliance. Contact us via email at [email protected].

Protecting a Giant: Why Godzilla Needs Both 3D Mark and Industrial Design Status

Intellectual Property, Trademark, Industrial Design

This November, one of Japan’s oldest Intellectual Property (IP) assets celebrates its 70th anniversary. First introduced as a movie in 1954, Godzilla has since starred in over 40 films and animated series, and its Trademark is protected in more than 30 countries worldwide.   As a giant mutant lizard with many variations, its likeness has also been immortalized in various toys and merchandise, often registered as Industrial Designs to protect them from counterfeiting. However, since Industrial Design protection has a limited duration, Toho, the owner of Godzilla’s IP, has also registered it as a 3D Mark.   What’s the difference? What are the advantages compared to Industrial Designs? Here’s the answer…   Aesthetic Value vs. Distinctiveness   Based on its definition, Industrial Design protects the aesthetic aspects or appearance of a product, such as its shape, pattern, or configuration, which give it a distinctive impression. The focus is on visually appealing elements rather than brand identity. Therefore, Industrial Designs protect the unique design of vehicles, household appliances, and, of course, toys.   On the other hand, a 3D Mark is a mark that protects the three-dimensional shape of a product used to distinguish the goods or services of one party from another. Examples include the Coca-Cola bottle, Lego bricks, Ferrari’s prancing horse, and the PS5 console.   The differences, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of Industrial Designs and 3D Marks, can be summarized in the following table:   Industrial Design 3D Mark Focus of Protection Protects the aesthetics or visual appeal of a product. Protects the identity and function of a Trademark in commerce. Duration of Protection Limited duration, typically 10-15 years, depending on the regulations in a given country. Unlimited duration as long as it is renewed periodically every 10 years. Registration Process & Criteria Must be new and unique in its design. Requires evidence that the shape has a distinctive character and is recognized by consumers as a Trademark. A 3D Mark cannot be registered if the shape has functional value. Advantages The registration process is relatively simpler and quicker. Protection can last indefinitely with periodic renewals. Disadvantages Protection is limited to aesthetic aspects, and the duration cannot be extended. The registration process is more complex and requires significant evidence of use to demonstrate distinctiveness in the market.   Godzilla Needs Longer Protection   From the table above, we can understand why IP assets as old as Godzilla still seek longer protection. Especially considering the increasing hype surrounding Godzilla after winning the 2024 Academy Award/Oscar for Best Visual Effects. This success could lead to an increase in counterfeit products and toys by irresponsible parties.   According to Yahoo Japan and a decision by the Japanese court, Toho’s attempt to register one of Godzilla’s variants, Shin Godzilla, as a 3D Trademark began as early as October 2019. However, after a lengthy process, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) issued a final rejection in March 2024, stating that the registered Godzilla shape was too generic and lacked sufficient distinctiveness.   Toho subsequently filed an appeal in May, emphasizing that the Shin Godzilla design has a strong distinctive character and is widely recognized by the public. This was followed by a review of submitted evidence, including the popularity of Shin Godzilla as a character, its use in various products, and public recognition of the shape as a unique identity, by the court.   3D Mark Shin Godzilla – Application No.: 2020-120003   Finally, on October 30, 2024, the court overturned the JPO’s decision and declared that the 3D shape of Shin Godzilla possesses sufficient distinctiveness and is eligible to be registered as a 3D Mark. The court emphasized that the popularity and widespread recognition of the Shin Godzilla character added significant value to the assessment of its distinctiveness.   As a result, Shin Godzilla has successfully secured the opportunity to get unlimited protection.   This ruling sets an important precedent for 3D Mark protection in Japan, particularly for the entertainment industry and consumer products that rely on unique characters or designs as their brand identity. Previously, iconic characters were typically protected through copyright for creative works, and their names or logos as Trademarks. Now, these characters can also be protected as 3D Marks if proven to have distinctiveness and public recognition as a source identifier.   This strengthens Intellectual Property protection for iconic characters through a layered and complementary approach, depending on the context of their use. Should you need further information regarding trademark registration and protection in Indonesia or worldwide, please contact us via email: [email protected].

Trademark Filing and Renewal Fees in the US Rise Starting January 2025: What You Need to Know - AFFA IPR

Trademark Filing & Renewal Fees in the U.S. Rise Starting January 2025: What You Need to Know

Intellectual Property, Trademark

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced fee adjustments for Trademark filing and renewal, which will take effect on January 18, 2025. These changes include increases in fees for various Trademark-related services, ranging from USD 50 to 150.   If you own a registered Trademark in the United States or plan to file a Trademark there, here are the details of the fee changes:   Application Fees Current New TEAS Standard* USD 350 n/a TEAS Plus** USD 250 n/a Base application (sections 1 and 44), per class n/a USD 350 Application fee filed with WIPO (section 66(a)), per class USD 500 USD 600 Subsequent designation fee filed with WIPO (section 66(a)), per class                                USD 500 USD 600   Surcharge Fees Current New Insufficient information (sections 1 and 44), per class n/a USD 100 Using the free-form text box instead of the Trademark ID Manual within the Trademark Center to identify goods and services (sections 1 and 44), per class n/a USD 200 Each additional group of 1,000 characters in the free-form text box beyond the first 1,000 (sections 1 and 44), per affected class n/a USD 200   Post-Registration Maintenance Fees Current New Section 9 registration renewal application, per class                                                            USD 300 USD 325 Section 8 declaration, per class USD 225 USD 325 Section 15 declaration, per class USD 200 USD 250 Section 71 declaration, per class USD 225 USD 325 Renewal fee filed at WIPO USD 300 USD 325   Petitions and Letters of Protest Fees Current New Petition to the Director USD 250 USD 400 Petition to revive an application                                                                                           USD 150 USD 250 Letter of protest USD 50 USD 150   Intent-to-Use Fees Current New Amendment to allege use (AAU), per class                                                                            USD 100 USD 150 Statement of use (SOU), per class USD 100 USD 150   If possible, you can file a new Trademark application before January 2025 and take advantage of the services of an experienced Trademark Consultant to calculate all potential costs that may arise afterward. By understanding these costs, you can better prepare in advance, ensuring a smooth trademark protection process in the United States.   Make sure not to miss business opportunities and always secure Trademark protection in the United States by registering your Trademark there.   Should you need more information regarding Trademark registration and protection in the United States, please contact us via email: [email protected].   *) Trademark Electronic Application System Standard: A registration scheme with higher fees, suitable for unique goods and/or services with specific descriptions if they are not available in the existing list provided by the USPTO. **) Trademark Electronic Application System Plus: A standard registration scheme that requires applicants to use the list of goods/services already provided by the USPTO.

WIPO's 2024 Report: Indonesia Ranks Among Global Leaders in Trademarks and Design Growth - AFFA IPR

WIPO’s 2024 Report: Indonesia Ranks Among Global Leaders in Trademarks and Design Growth

Intellectual Property

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently released the World Intellectual Property Indicators 2024 (WIPI) report, highlighting the growth performance of Intellectual Property (IP) in 2023. This report provides a comprehensive overview of global trends in IP, covering Patents, Trademarks, Geographical Indications, Industrial Designs, and Plant Variety Protection. It is a vital reference for governments, entrepreneurs, and innovators to understand their country’s position in the global IP landscape.   China, India, Russia, and Indonesia showcased remarkable growth in this report. China leads with 1.64 million Patent applications, accounting for 46% of all Patent applications worldwide. Regarding Trademark and industrial design applications, China also dominated with 7.4 million Trademark applications (approximately 49% of the total global market) and 58% of global industrial design filings. Similarly, China commanded a 54% share in plant variety protection applications.   How Did Indonesia Perform?   While the global average for Trademark applications declined by 2%, Indonesia bucked the trend with a 10% increase in 2023, trailing only Russia (30%) and Mexico (11%). For industrial designs, Indonesia recorded the highest global growth at 37.3%, far surpassing the global average of 2.8%. In absolute numbers, Trademark applications in Indonesia rose from 122,458 to 152,447, and industrial design filings increased from 4,795 to 6,326. These achievements place Indonesia as a Southeast Asian leader, far ahead of Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand.   Global Rankings: Where Does Indonesia Stand?   Trademark Applications Indonesia ranks 15th globally, behind: China (7,184,831) United States (739,395) Russia (546,455) India (520,862) EUIPO (436,720) Brazil (427,327) Turkey (398,763) United Kingdom (345,205) Japan (328,559) Iran (327,384) South Korea (314,284) France (263,550) Germany (229,793) Mexico (205,867)   Industrial Design Applications Indonesia ranks 19th globally, trailing: China (826,086) EUIPO (116,884) United Kingdom (81,543) United States (60,022) South Korea (59,454) Turkey (58,084) Italy (37,099) Japan (32,061) France (30,023) Germany (29,663) India (28,168) Spain (14,776) Switzerland (11,391) Russia (10,472) Canada (9,037) Australia (8,798) Iran (7,841) Brazil (7,679)   Creative Industries Drive Growth According to the WIPI 2024 report, Indonesia’s growth in Trademarks is largely fueled by MSMEs and the creative economy, while the textile, fashion, and handicraft sectors primarily drive the surge in industrial design filings The data further indicates that the primary purpose of registering Trademarks and industrial designs in Indonesia is to facilitate exports.   Future Potential and Opportunities As public awareness of IP registration continues to grow, Indonesia holds immense potential to become a hub for innovation and intellectual property in the ASEAN region. Strengthening regulations, increasing public education, and fostering collaboration with the private sector can help capitalize on this momentum.   Should you need more information about the registration and protection of Patents, Trademarks, or Industrial Designs, both domestically and internationally, please contact us via email: [email protected].

The Ultimate Guide to the Amendment of the Indonesian Patent Law - AFFA IPR

The Ultimate Guide to the Amendment of the Indonesian Patent Law

Patent, Intellectual Property6 Comments

The Indonesian IP world has just gotten more exciting after the enactment of the Law No. 65 Year 2024 on the Third Amendment to the Law No. 13 Year 2016 on Patents on 28 October 2024. The amendment is designed to be in line with the current technological practices around the world, while at the same time putting a special emphasis on the national interest. It also aims to make Indonesia’s Patent System more adaptable and responsive to contemporary needs.   Please note that as the result of this amendment, several official fees have increased as well. The actions that are subject to the increase include the acceleration of publication, substantive examination request for both invention patent and simple patent, and the appeal before the patent board of appeal/appeal commission. Whereas for recordals (data amendment,  assignment and license), certificate correction, filing and annuity fees remain the same.   The key theme of the amendment is divided into 28 parts below.  Please note that the amendment has the following conditions:   Patent applications that have been submitted and processed but are not yet completed will continue to be processed based on the provisions of patent legislation prior to the enactment of this Law. The protection period for simple patent applications submitted under Law No. 14 of 2001 on Patents and Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents, as amended by Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Establishment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation as Law, is calculated from the Filing Date. Patents granted under Law No. 14 of 2001 on Patents shall remain valid until the end of their protection period.   Should you need more information regarding the proposed amendment of Patent Law in Indonesia, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].  

Unraveling the Global Complexity of IP Crime: Money Laundering and More! AFFA IPR

Unraveling the Global Complexity of IP Crime: Money Laundering and More!

Patent, Intellectual Property, Trademark, Copyright, Industrial Design1 Comment

Intellectual Property (IP) Crime negatively impacts the economy and consumer safety and has become structurally more complex, posing a worldwide threat to economic and social security.   According to the recently released report “Uncovering the Ecosystem of Intellectual Property Crime,” published this October by the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), it is revealed that 6% of imported products entering the European Union are counterfeit, with a value exceeding 2 billion euros) annually. This figure represents only the seized products, mainly packaging materials, toys, cigarettes, and CDs/DVDs. Imagine if we could account for the undetected counterfeit goods distributed worldwide.   So, why is tackling IP crime so challenging? The report highlights that this form of crime is highly networked and involves corrupt officials, money laundering, and even tax officers. EUIPO labels these facilitators as IP Crime Enablers!   How significant is their role, and how do they perpetuate Intellectual Property crime? Here are the details.   Intellectual Property Crime – The Definition   In the document, “IP Crime” refers to illegal activities involving the theft, infringement, or unauthorized use of Intellectual Property (IP) rights, which include Copyrights, Industrial Designs, Trademarks, Patents, Geographical Indications, and Trade Secrets. The document categorizes IP crime primarily as:   Counterfeiting Manufacturing, importing, distributing, storing, or selling goods that bear the Trademark of a genuine brand without permission. Examples: Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals: Production and distribution of fake pharmaceutical products that can pose severe health risks to consumers. For instance, counterfeit Semaglutide injection pens falsely labeled as containing the active ingredient were found to contain other substances, leading to serious health incidents​. Counterfeit Automotive Parts: The production and distribution of fake automotive parts, like brake pads and wheel rims, infringe Trademarks and pose serious safety risks. Piracy Unauthorized copying, use, reproduction, and distribution of materials protected by IP rights, such as digital media, software, and entertainment. Example: Digital Piracy: Illicit streaming services that distribute copyrighted content (like movies and sports events) without authorization. In one case, a streaming service was operating across multiple countries, generating significant revenue through illegal broadcasts​.   The Mechanics of IP Crime   IP criminals exploit weaknesses in the global supply chain, legal loopholes, and infrastructure to operate with resilience and evade law enforcement efforts. This structured approach allows them to profit significantly while remaining difficult to prosecute due to their operations’ multi-jurisdictional and often hidden nature. The structured process criminal networks use to conduct IP crimes ranges from obtaining infringing items to laundering the proceeds. Here are the key phases:   Infringing IP Rights (Acquisition Phase) This is the initial stage where IP rights are intentionally violated. Criminals produce counterfeit goods by replicating brand logos, labels, or pirated content. This phase may involve either manufacturing counterfeit products directly or diverting legitimate products from the supply chain. Common sources for counterfeit goods include China, Hong Kong, and Türkiye. Transportation and Distribution Phase After acquiring the counterfeit items, networks transport them globally, often abusing the legal logistical and shipping sectors to move goods across borders. Criminals use sophisticated smuggling techniques, including splitting shipments and hiding counterfeit items within legitimate products to avoid detection. Marketing and Retail Phase Criminals use both online and offline methods to market and sell counterfeit products. Online marketplaces, social media platforms, and even the dark web provide anonymity and access to large audiences. Offline, counterfeit goods may also be sold through physical retail outlets or open markets. Dealing with Profits and Risks (Money-Laundering Phase) The final stage involves managing the profits from these illegal sales. Criminal networks employ money laundering techniques to disguise the origins of their profits. This includes investing in legal businesses, conducting physical cash transfers, or using complex digital financial systems to reintegrate funds into the economy.   Parties Also Involved in Intellectual Property Crimes In addition to the 4 (four) phases of crime above, Europol and EUIPO mapped the parties involved in IP crimes, making these crimes complex and challenging to eradicate.   Criminal Enablers These are illegal activities or crimes that help facilitate IP crime: Corruption: Bribery or manipulation within organizations to ease illegal processes. Forced Labour: Exploitation of labor, often under inhumane conditions, to produce counterfeit goods. Cybercrime: Digital crimes that support IP crime, such as phishing, malware, or data theft. Money Laundering: Concealing the profits from IP crime by converting illegal earnings into legitimate assets. Document Fraud: Creating fake documents to disguise the origin or legitimacy of counterfeit goods. Environmental Crime (Envicrime): Illegal activities that harm the environment, often associated with the improper disposal of waste from counterfeit production. Non-Criminal Enablers These are lawful activities or structures that criminals misuse to facilitate IP crime: Professional Expertise: Use of skills from professionals (e.g., lawyers, technicians) to support illegal IP activities. Use of Legal Business Structures (LBS): Legal businesses that provide a front for illegal IP activities, such as follows: Trading Companies or Factories These legitimate businesses can be set up or inserted into the supply chain to disguise the production or distribution of counterfeit goods. Factories or production sites can be used to produce counterfeit goods under the guise of legitimate products. Warehouses or Logistics Service Providers Legitimate warehouses or logistics companies can be used to store or transport counterfeit goods without raising suspicion. For example, counterfeit goods can be hidden among legitimate products in international shipments. Physical Retail Stores Appearing legitimate stores can be used to sell counterfeit goods to consumers without their knowledge. Counterfeit goods can be sold alongside legitimate products, making it difficult for consumers to tell the difference. Online Stores or Marketplace Platforms Many IP criminals use e-commerce websites or accounts on platforms like Amazon, eBay, or social media to sell counterfeit products. These platforms often give the impression of a legitimate business, making it easier for criminals to reach consumers at a wide range. Front or Shell Companies These companies are technically legitimate but serve only as a front for illegal activity. They are often used to launder money…

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…

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].

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

AI: A Threat to Our Intellectual Property?

Patent, Intellectual Property, Copyright

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