Home › Selected Matters
Confidentiality is not a formality we observe selectively. What appears below are matters decided in open session, with judgments published by the courts themselves.
We publish only matters we are permitted to publish. Client identities and case details are confidential and are not disclosed without written consent, which is why this page is short.
Judicial review of Article 74(1) and 74(2) of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Marks and Geographical Indications, tested against Articles 28D(1), 28H(4) and 33(4) of the 1945 Constitution. We acted as counsel in that matter. Granted in part: the trademark non-use period extended from three to five consecutive years, and force majeure read into the statutory exceptions. Article 74(3) left intact.
Read the full analysis
Commercial Court, Central Jakarta · Well-known mark
A foreign electronics manufacturer found its mark registered in Indonesia by someone else — not in one class but across eight, from power tools to clothing to retail services. We acted for the owner of the mark. The claim succeeded in full: VENTION was held to be a well-known mark, internationally and in Indonesia; the registrant was held to have filed in bad faith; and every registration was cancelled and ordered struck from the Register. The matter is now before the Supreme Court on cassation.
When a fresh registration of the same mark appeared in the retail services class, we filed a second action. The defendant’s preliminary objections were rejected and the claim again succeeded in full. That decision is final.
Commercial Court, Central Jakarta · Defending a registration
A foreign food company sued to cancel our client’s EVEREST registration — an Indonesian trader selling rice and household staples, who had held the registration since 2008 and renewed it. We filed preliminary objections. The court upheld them: the claim was held to be obscure and inadmissible, and the claimant was ordered to pay the costs. Our client’s registration stands, and the decision is final.
We put it plainly: the case ended on the objections, not on the merits. What this decided was not who is entitled to the mark, but that a small trader does not have to lose merely because the other side is a large company from abroad.
A judicial review before the Constitutional Court is a matter of public record, decided in open session and published by the Court itself. It can be discussed without disclosing anything a client entrusted to us.
Commercial Court proceedings are different. A decision may be published, but naming a client or describing their commercial position exposes what they did not agree to make public. The matters set out here are therefore identified by the mark alone, with the client’s consent, without party names and without any account of a portfolio. Other matters are not listed at all, and we publish no win rates calculated from them.
If you need to assess our experience in a specific type of dispute before instructing us, ask. We will discuss relevant experience directly, within the limits of what confidentiality permits.
