Insights
Written for brand owners and the counsel who advise them, on the questions that decide Indonesian trademark and commercial disputes.
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court extended the trademark non-use period from three years to five. The international commentary read this as a shelter for dormant marks. The petitioner sets out the three propositions that explain why it is not.
Read the analysisArticle 77(2) removes every limitation period from a bad-faith cancellation. A registration taken in bad faith can be attacked years after it issued — and Decision 144 left that untouched.
Read the analysisReserved classes and unlaunched variants are the entries a competitor targets first. Which of them could you evidence today?
Read the analysisHow the prevailing evidentiary method works, what it structurally fails to detect, and what a substantively just standard would weigh instead.
Read the analysisEvidentiary thresholds, the role of independent surveys, and what published decisions reveal about how strictly Indonesian courts read the requirement.
Read the analysisWhere ownership, registration authority and termination rights most often go wrong, and the drafting that prevents it.
Read the analysisMarketplace takedown mechanisms, the evidentiary value of transaction histories, and the limits of platform enforcement in Indonesia.
Read the analysisRegistrants facing non-use claims often engineer minimal use once proceedings begin. How Indonesian courts have treated it, and where the practice remains unsettled.
Read the analysisInsights are general information about Indonesian law and do not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship.
