平成 29 年 4 月 10 日発行
インドネシア知財ニュース第 028 号

本資料は、インドネシアで初めての日系知的財産コンサルタント会社であるハキンダ・インターナショナルが、インドネシア及びその近隣諸国の知財関連ニュースを英語で提供するものです。本文内容の無断での転載、再配信、掲示板への掲載等はお断りいたします。
情報の内容につきましては正確を期すように努めておりますが、正確性を保証するものではありません。本情報の利用の結果発生するいかなる不利益に対しましてもその責任を負いませんので予めご了承願います。

available by online streaming to users using anapplication named Bigo.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 28 September 2016)<Indonesia> Amendment of Patent Definitionin the New Patent Law
Director of Patent states that broader scope of patent
definition in the new patent law (Law No. 13 Year 2016
Regarding Patent) will increase number of patentapplication in Indonesia. In the said amendment, “process,composition, formula, system and method” are added tothe definition of simple patent. In addition, simple patentdoes not necessarily a new product, a development ofproduct or process is allowed. In 2015, number of patentapplication is 8,869 among them 700 are domestic
applications.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 22 September 2016)<Indonesia> Zego Boss Trademark Lawsuit
Commercial Court of Central Jakarta, in Case No.
27/Pd.Sus-HKI/2016/PN JKT.PST, refuse to cancel
registration of trademark “ZegoBoss” No.
IDM000189607, No.IDM000384747 and IDM000376735.
Judges consider that trademark “Hugo Boss” owned by
Hugo Boss Trade Mark management GmbH and Co. Kg
has weak distinctiveness, the word “Boss” is genericword so that any marks using word “Boss” do notnecessarily means as an imitation.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 6 October 2016)<Indonesia> Cancellation of Mark
“Matsunaga”<Indonesia> AEON Failed in Commercial
Court

Matsunaga manufacturing Co., Ltd. (plaintiff), in caseNo.44/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.pst, ask
Commercial Court of Central Jakarta to cancel
registration of marks “Pro Matsunaga”
No.IDM000477031, “Matsunaga+device”
No.IDM000491467 and “Matsunaga”
No.IDM000443216 in class 9 owned by Lie Senihian(defendant) because they have similarities with marks“Matsunaga” No. IDM000503466 andNo.D002016034356 owned by plaintiff.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 22 September 2016)

In case No.35/ Pdt.Sus-Merek/2015/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst,
Aeon Kabushiki Kaisha (plaintiff) failed to cancel mark“Aeon Rubber” No. IDM000382097 owned by Haryadi
Setiawan (defendant). Judges of Commercial Court ofCentral Jakarta decide that cancellation lawsuit filed byplaintiff cannot be accepted because the copy of verdict
No.64/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2015/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst (used byplaintiff as a ground of well-known mark for AEON)
cannot be used as evidence. According to judges, theplaintiff must submit the original one.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 13 October 2016)<Indonesia> Piracy of Warkop Movie<Indonesia> Broader Scope of Mark in theNew Mark Law

Following the case of WARKOP movie piracy conductedby a movie audience, PT Falcon Pictures (producer ofWARKOP movie) ask any parties not to conduct any
piracy action because it infringes the Copyright Law andthe criminal sanction for it is high (10 years/Rp4 billions).
In the said case, the audience doing the piracy byrecording the movie using a smartphone and make it

In addition to traditional marks, currently, sound mark,3D mark, and hologram mark are included in thedefinition of mark as stipulated in Article 1 of the Mark
Law (Law of Mark and Geographical Indication). This1

平成 29 年 4 月 10 日発行
インドネシア知財ニュース第 028 号

amendment is purposed to increase number of markapplication and also to adopt Singapore Treaty in thecurrent law.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 1 November 2016)

specifically describe the prior designs as the reason forcancellation.
Note: Member of PERSANDO/Perkumpulan Sanitary
Indonesia = TOTO, ONDA, etc.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 16 November 2016)<Indonesia> Case of Patent (LPG Regulator)
Commercial Court of Central Jakarta, in caseNo.41/Pdt.Sus-paten/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, refused tocancel the registration of simple patentNo.IDS000001445 (LPG Regulator with a LockingMechanism) owned by Sukianto (defendant) because thesaid patent has a novelty. The said cancellation lawsuit
was filed by Indra Mustakim (plaintiff/owner of patentNo.IDS000001072, Improved LPG Regulator Apparatus).
(Bisnis Indonesia, 2 November 2016)<Indonesia> Apology Notice<Indonesia> ADIDAS AG Withdrawn theMark Lawsuit<Indonesia> BEKRAF Arranges IP-Based
Financing

Adidas AG (plaintiff), in caseNo.38/Pdt.Sus-paten/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, had
withdrawn their lawsuit in 22 September 2016. However,plaintiff did not disclose the reason for the said
withdrawal. In the said lawsuit, plaintiff ask judges tocancel mark “Sportmen and logo” owned by Jimmy
Sanjaya (defendant) because it similar with well-known
marks 3-Bars and 3-Stripes owned by plaintiff.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 4 November 2016)

BEKRAF (Creative Economic Agency) is currently
arranging an IP-based financing concept in order topromote financial access for this sector. In this concept,
IP (as an intangible asset) is proposed to be a substitutefor land and building as collateral for financing frombanks.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 22 November 2016)

ROBIN, HARTANTO DJOKRO, AND MUJIONO (storeowners) domiciled in Jakarta, apologizes to MOTOROLATRADEMARK HOLDINGS, LLC. (Motorola) for using
trademarks owned by Motorola for some products(walkie-talkie, battery, and accessories) without anyconsent.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 21 November 2016)<Indonesia> Cancellation Case of Mark
Nusasari<Indonesia> Unilever Is Sued for Copyright
Infringement

In case No. 1/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Desain/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst,
PT Nutrifood Indonesaia (plaintiff) ask Commercial
Court of Central Jakarta to cancel registration of mark“Nusasari” No.IDM000498569 Class 30 owned by Teti
Rohayati (defendant) because it has similarities withmarks “Nutrisari” No. IDM000258060, etc., owned byplaintiff for the same kind of goods.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 22 November 2016)

In case No.54/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Cipta/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst,
Joice M. Senduk (plaintiff) ask PT Unilever Indonesia
Tbk (defendant) to pay compensation by Rp22.5 billion
because defendant has infringed the copyright of plaintiff
by using of self-portrait of plaintiff for commercial
purpose without any permission.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 9 November 2016)<Indonesia>
UnileverInfringement Claim<Indonesia> Design Case: Cancellation ofSanitary Designs

DeniestheUnilever Indonesia Tbk. (defendant I) states that they are
not responsible for the use of self-portrait asadvertisement because they have assigned all advertising
matters to PT Citra Lintas Indonesia (defendant II) by andAdvertising Agency Agreement. Previously, in caseNo.54/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Cipta/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, JoiceM. Senduk (plaintiff) ask PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk(defendant I) to pay compensation by Rp22.5 billion
because defendant has infringed the copyright of plaintiff

In caseNo.32/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Desain/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst,
Commercial Court agrees to cancel registration of 94
Industrial Design of sanitary (soap case, tap, shower, hose,etc.) owned by 9 local owners (defendant). Judges
consider that the said industrial designs have no novelty
because they have been produced by PERSANDO(plaintiff) previously. Further, defendants will submit
appeal to Supreme Court because the judges did not2

平成 29 年 4 月 10 日発行
インドネシア知財ニュース第 028 号

by using of self-portrait of plaintiff for commercial
purpose without any permission.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 24 November 2016)<Indonesia> Unilever Escapes from Copyright
Infringement<Indonesia> “Bharath Darshan” Still Ownedby Asoka
Commercial Court of Central Jakarta, in caseNo.26/Pdt.Sus-Merek/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, cannot accept
claim of Prakash Vashdev (plaintiff) for cancelling mark
Bharath Darshan No. IDM000287198 owned by Asoka
Trading Co. (defendant). Judges consider that according
to Mark Law, the plaintiff should file the mark application
first prior cancelling the said mark.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 2 December 2016)

Commercial Court of Central Jakarta cannot accept thelawsuit of copyright infringement filed by Joice M.
Senduk (plaintiff) because the lawsuit is obscure.
Previously, in caseNo.54/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Cipta/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst,
plaintiff ask PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk (defendant) to
pay compensation by Rp22.5 billion because defendant
has infringed the copyright of plaintiff by using ofself-portrait of plaintiff for commercial purpose without
any permission.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 21 December 2016)<Indonesia> Cancellation Case of Mark“Proenza Schouler”<Indonesia> Cancellation Case of Mark“Happybaby”

In case No.
60/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Desain/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, Proenza
Schouler LLC (plaintiff) ask Commercial Court ofCentral Jakarta to cancel registration of mark “ProenzaSchouler” No.IDM000410586 in class 25 in the name of
Lie Giok Lan (defendant) because it has similarities withmarks “Proenza Schouler” No. D002016011264/
D002016011267/ D002016011271 owned by plaintiff forthe same kind of goods and because it was filed withhaving bad faith.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 6 December 2016)

In case No.
56/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Desain/2016/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, NurtureIndonesia (plaintiff) ask Commercial Court of Central
Jakarta to cancel registration of mark “Happybaby”
No.IDM000290494 Class 5 owned by PT Organik
Semesta (defendant) because it has similarities withmarks “Happybaby” No. D00.2015.034854 owned byplaintiff for the same kind of goods and because it wasfiled with having bad faith.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 22 December 2016)<Indonesia> AEON proceeds
Similar Marks in Indonesia

to<Indonesia> Online Filing Will Be An OptCancel

Following the issuance of PP No.45/2016 which includes
the regulation for fee for IP online filing, DGIP predicts
that number of online application will increase. Although
DGIP state that online filling scheme will help applicant
to file their application in less cost, however, somecomplaints were sounded by SME’s regarding theincrease of fee of filing for mark and GI.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 28 December 2016)

Aeon Kabushiki Kaisha continues the process ofcancelling similar marks in Indonesia in order to run theirbusiness. Currently, they succeeded in cancelling marks
No.IDM000472049 (class 3) in the name of Panji Wisnu
Wardhani and No.IDM000386069 (class 32) in the nameof Agus Srihartono. However, they failed in cancellingmark “Aeon Rubber” No. IDM000382097 owned byharyadi Setiawan.
(Bisnis Indonesia, 21 December 2016)***3