In Intellectual Property disputes, particularly Trademark disputes, ownership is not simply a matter of who considers themselves to be the rightful owner. Once a dispute is brought before the court, the relevant rights must be capable of being proven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is particularly important in Trademark invalidation proceedings. The Defendant must be able to establish the legal basis for its ownership, while the Plaintiff must also have the appropriate legal standing to initiate the lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But what if the Plaintiff does not yet hold a Trademark certificate in Indonesia? Can a Trademark registration obtained abroad automatically serve as a legal basis for bringing an action in Indonesia? And what if the available documents consist only of digital certificates, scanned copies, or printouts?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These questions may appear straightforward, but in practice they can become decisive issues in court proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal Standing of a Plaintiff Whose Trademark Has Not Yet Been Registered<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Law No. 20 of 2016<\/strong> concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications<\/strong> addresses this issue expressly. Article 76 paragraph (2)<\/strong> provides that the owner of an unregistered Trademark may file a lawsuit as referred to in paragraph (1) after submitting a Trademark Application to the Minister.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This means that if an individual or company believes that its Trademark has been registered earlier by another party, it must first submit an application to register the Trademark in Indonesia before filing a Trademark invalidation lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trademark registrations obtained abroad or evidence of use in other countries may still form part of the evidence submitted before the court, for example to demonstrate prior use, reputation, or the history of ownership of the Trademark. However, such evidence does not automatically replace the requirements imposed under Indonesian Trademark law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this reason, the issue of legal standing should be examined from the outset, before a lawsuit is filed. A matter that could have been addressed at an early stage should not be allowed to become an obstacle once the case has already entered court proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trademark Ownership and Evidence in Court Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Once legal standing has been established, the next issue is evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Trademark disputes, a Trademark certificate is one of the key documents used to demonstrate the existence of a registered right. However, evidence presented before the court is not necessarily limited to the Trademark certificate itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The parties may also submit other documents relating to the ownership and use of the Trademark, including licensing agreements, evidence of use, commercial documents, and evidence of Trademark registrations in various jurisdictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what happens if those documents are available only in digital form, as scanned copies, or as printouts?<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where Article 1888 of the Indonesian Civil Code<\/strong> becomes relevant. In essence, this provision establishes that the evidentiary value of a written document rests with the original instrument. Copies or extracts may be relied upon insofar as they correspond with the original document, which may be required to be produced when necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, original documents continue to play an important role in evidentiary proceedings. A scanned copy or photocopy of an agreement does not necessarily carry the same evidentiary weight as the original document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Does this mean that digital documents or photocopies unsupported by an original document will automatically be rejected by the court?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not necessarily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In judicial practice, judges do not merely consider whether the original document is available. They may also assess how the document relates to other evidence, including whether the opposing party acknowledges or disputes the existence and authenticity of that document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n When the Original Document Cannot Be Produced<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This approach can be seen in several Supreme Court decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Supreme Court Decision No. 112 K\/Pdt\/1996<\/strong>, a photocopy of a document whose original could not be produced, and which was not supported by witness testimony or other evidence, was considered inadmissible as valid evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By contrast, in Supreme Court Decision No. 410 K\/Pdt\/2004<\/strong>, a photocopy whose original could not be produced was accepted because the existence and authenticity of the document were acknowledged by the opposing party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A similar approach can be seen in Supreme Court Decision No. 1498 K\/Pdt\/2006<\/strong>, where, under certain circumstances, a photocopy of a photocopy could be accepted when supported by other evidentiary elements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These decisions demonstrate that the statement that \u201ca photocopy without the original document is automatically invalid in court\u201d<\/em><\/strong> is an oversimplification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Original documents remain the safest form of documentary evidence. Nevertheless, copies may, under certain circumstances, still be considered, particularly where their existence is acknowledged by the opposing party or where they are supported by other forms of evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, the court’s assessment remains an important factor. Relying on such exceptions naturally carries greater risk than being able to produce the original document in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For this reason, preserving original documents should not be regarded merely as an administrative matter. It should form part of a broader strategy for maintaining evidentiary strength in the event that a dispute arises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n What About Digital Trademark Certificates?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The development of digital administrative systems means that Intellectual Property documents are no longer always issued in physical form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, a digital document cannot automatically be regarded as having no evidentiary value simply because it is not printed on paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, it is important to distinguish between a document that was originally issued electronically and a scanned or digital copy of a physical document. These two categories involve different evidentiary considerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For documents that are issued electronically from the outset, factors such as authentication, document integrity, the identity of the issuing or signing party, and the mechanism through which the document was issued become relevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By contrast, where only a scanned copy of a physical document is available, questions concerning the original may still arise if the document is challenged by the opposing party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Digital document storage therefore remains important as a backup and as part of an effective evidence management system, but it should not always be regarded as a complete substitute for an original physical document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Intellectual Property matters, properly maintaining documents from the outset can prevent evidentiary difficulties from arising when a dispute occurs later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Do Not Only Protect Your IP, Protect the Documents Behind It<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Registering Trademarks, Patents, Industrial Designs, and other forms of Intellectual Property is undoubtedly important. However, Intellectual Property protection does not end when a certificate is issued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Companies should also maintain a proper documentation system for contracts, assignments of rights, licences, consents, important correspondence, and transaction documents relating to Intellectual Property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Companies should store physical documents with legal significance securely and under appropriate control. At the same time, companies may maintain digital copies as backups and to support day-to-day document management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For transactions that are conducted electronically from the outset, companies should also pay attention to systems capable of supporting evidence concerning the identity of the parties, document integrity, transaction dates and times, and the approval process, should the legal relationship later become disputed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, when a dispute arises, the question is not merely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDo we still have the file?\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The more important question is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCan we prove that the document is authentic and genuinely reflects the legal relationship between the parties?\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Intellectual Property protection, holding the right itself may not always be enough. The ability to prove ownership, assignment, licensing, use, and the legal relationships associated with that right is an important component of a comprehensive IP protection strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, protecting Intellectual Property means not only safeguarding the right itself, but also preserving the evidence capable of demonstrating that the right genuinely belongs to us or remains under our control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n For further information regarding documentary evidence in Intellectual Property disputes, please contact us through the channels below and receive a FREE 15-minute consultation:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udce9 E-Mail : trademark@affa.co.id<\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udcf3 Book a Call : +62 21 83793812<\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udcac WhatsApp : +62 812 87000 889<\/p>\n\n\n\n About AFFA: <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Established in 1999, AFFA Intellectual Property Rights is an Indonesia-based boutique IP law firm serving international brands and innovators, offering full-service support\u2014from prosecution and licensing to enforcement and commercialization\u2014in Indonesia\u2019s dynamic IP landscape. Our firm is widely recognized for its excellence, with accolades including \u201cBest Boutique Law Firm in Indonesia\u201d<\/strong> and \u201cIP Enforcement Firm\u201d<\/strong> at the Indonesia Law Firm Awards 2025 by Asia Business Law Journal<\/strong>, as well as being listed as a \u201cRecommended Firm 2024 \u2014 Indonesia\u201d<\/strong> by WTR 1000: The World\u2019s Leading Trademark Professionals<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Intellectual Property disputes, particularly Trademark disputes, ownership is not simply a matter of who considers themselves to be the rightful owner. Once a dispute is brought before the court, the relevant rights must be capable of being proven. This is particularly important in Trademark invalidation proceedings. The Defendant must be able to establish the legal basis for its ownership, while the Plaintiff must also have the appropriate legal standing to initiate the lawsuit. But what if the Plaintiff does not yet hold a Trademark certificate in Indonesia? Can a Trademark registration obtained abroad automatically serve as a legal basis for bringing an action in Indonesia? And what if the available documents consist only of digital certificates, scanned copies, or printouts? These questions may appear straightforward, but in practice they can become decisive issues in court proceedings. Legal Standing of a Plaintiff Whose Trademark Has Not Yet Been Registered Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications addresses this issue expressly. Article 76 paragraph (2) provides that the owner of an unregistered Trademark may file a lawsuit as referred to in paragraph (1) after submitting a Trademark Application to the Minister. This means that if an individual or company believes that its Trademark has been registered earlier by another party, it must first submit an application to register the Trademark in Indonesia before filing a Trademark invalidation lawsuit. Trademark registrations obtained abroad or evidence of use in other countries may still form part of the evidence submitted before the court, for example to demonstrate prior use, reputation, or the history of ownership of the Trademark. However, such evidence does not automatically replace the requirements imposed under Indonesian Trademark law. For this reason, the issue of legal standing should be examined from the outset, before a lawsuit is filed. A matter that could have been addressed at an early stage should not be allowed to become an obstacle once the case has already entered court proceedings. Trademark Ownership and Evidence in Court Proceedings Once legal standing has been established, the next issue is evidence. In Trademark disputes, a Trademark certificate is one of the key documents used to demonstrate the existence of a registered right. However, evidence presented before the court is not necessarily limited to the Trademark certificate itself. The parties may also submit other documents relating to the ownership and use of the Trademark, including licensing agreements, evidence of use, commercial documents, and evidence of Trademark registrations in various jurisdictions. But what happens if those documents are available only in digital form, as scanned copies, or as printouts? This is where Article 1888 of the Indonesian Civil Code becomes relevant. In essence, this provision establishes that the evidentiary value of a written document rests with the original instrument. Copies or extracts may be relied upon insofar as they correspond with the original document, which may be required to be produced when necessary. Accordingly, original documents continue to play an important role in evidentiary proceedings. A scanned copy or photocopy of an agreement does not necessarily carry the same evidentiary weight as the original document. Does this mean that digital documents or photocopies unsupported by an original document will automatically be rejected by the court? Not necessarily. In judicial practice, judges do not merely consider whether the original document is available. They may also assess how the document relates to other evidence, including whether the opposing party acknowledges or disputes the existence and authenticity of that document. When the Original Document Cannot Be Produced This approach can be seen in several Supreme Court decisions. In Supreme Court Decision No. 112 K\/Pdt\/1996, a photocopy of a document whose original could not be produced, and which was not supported by witness testimony or other evidence, was considered inadmissible as valid evidence. By contrast, in Supreme Court Decision No. 410 K\/Pdt\/2004, a photocopy whose original could not be produced was accepted because the existence and authenticity of the document were acknowledged by the opposing party. A similar approach can be seen in Supreme Court Decision No. 1498 K\/Pdt\/2006, where, under certain circumstances, a photocopy of a photocopy could be accepted when supported by other evidentiary elements. These decisions demonstrate that the statement that \u201ca photocopy without the original document is automatically invalid in court\u201d is an oversimplification. Original documents remain the safest form of documentary evidence. Nevertheless, copies may, under certain circumstances, still be considered, particularly where their existence is acknowledged by the opposing party or where they are supported by other forms of evidence. Ultimately, the court’s assessment remains an important factor. Relying on such exceptions naturally carries greater risk than being able to produce the original document in court. For this reason, preserving original documents should not be regarded merely as an administrative matter. It should form part of a broader strategy for maintaining evidentiary strength in the event that a dispute arises. What About Digital Trademark Certificates? The development of digital administrative systems means that Intellectual Property documents are no longer always issued in physical form. Accordingly, a digital document cannot automatically be regarded as having no evidentiary value simply because it is not printed on paper. However, it is important to distinguish between a document that was originally issued electronically and a scanned or digital copy of a physical document. These two categories involve different evidentiary considerations. For documents that are issued electronically from the outset, factors such as authentication, document integrity, the identity of the issuing or signing party, and the mechanism through which the document was issued become relevant. By contrast, where only a scanned copy of a physical document is available, questions concerning the original may still arise if the document is challenged by the opposing party. Digital document storage therefore remains important as a backup and as part of an effective evidence management system, but it should not always be regarded as a complete substitute for an original physical document. In Intellectual Property matters, properly maintaining documents from the outset can prevent<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7325,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60],"tags":[208,252,462,463,464,465,92,99,103,107,116,132,134,186,205],"class_list":["post-7324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-trademark","tag-indonesia","tag-court","tag-legal","tag-evidence","tag-civil-code","tag-certificates","tag-trademark","tag-intellectual-property","tag-merek","tag-kekayaan-intelektual","tag-affa","tag-your-ip-is-our-expertise","tag-affa-ipr","tag-timing-is-everything","tag-regulation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7324"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7324\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7326,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7324\/revisions\/7326"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7325"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/affa.co.id\/global\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}