PERADI (Bar) exam success

Two of our Junior Associates, Jennifer Tangka and Dian Kirana, have passed their PERADI (Bar) exams.

There are big smiles in the office today, as Jennifer and Dian celebrate this career milestone.  Bar exams were conducted in 19 cities across Indonesia back in February 2014, and results were published early this morning (here).  After obtaining the requisite practice experience, Jennifer and Dian will receive their license to practice and appear before the Courts, and will be promoted to Associate at SKC Law.

Please join with us in congratulating Jennifer and Dian!

DGIP statistics - 2012

The Directorate-General of Intellectual Property (“DGIP”) has published its 2012 statistics, and the numbers affirm reports on Indonesia’s solid domestic economy.

According to the statistics published on the DGIP's website (here):

• 62,455 trademark applications were filed in 2012, which is a 17.41% increase on 2011;
• 7,032 patent applications were filed in 2012, which is a 14.71% increase on 2011; and
• 4,612 industrial design applications were filed in 2012, which is a 9.91% increase on 2011.

(image shows number of trademark applications filed,

2009 - 2012, taken from DGIP website)

It is interesting to note that class 25 (clothing, footwear, headgear) trademark applications were most numerous with 4,134 applications filed, followed by class 30 (coffee, tea, staple foods, etc.) with 3,611 applications filed. The most commonly filed patent applications were International Patent Classification A (human necessities), and most industrial design applications were for class 9 (packaging).  This is consistent with reports that domestic consumption has been propping up the Indonesian economy (see our post on Indonesia’s economic performance in 2012 here, and here), and is more good news for consumer-facing businesses in Indonesia.

The Secretary to the Director-General of Intellectual Property, Razilu, is quoted in a recent Jakarta Post article (here) as stating that the number of trademark applications filed in 2013 was 62,813.  Assuming it will be confirmed in official reporting, this is a surprising number - inconsistent with growth trends over recent years.  We understand, from enquiries with DGIP officers, that there are still problems with the new IPAS database system (see our post on IPAS here) and that data from November 2013 and December 2013 may not have been logged in the system yet.  If 62,813 is the number of trademark applications filed in 2013 up to October, the projected number of filings for the year would be 75,375 representing 19% growth on 2012.  When full 2013 statistics are formally published, we might have a better idea about what is going on.

Well-known trademarks

A recent case illustrates shortcomings in the treatment of well-known trademarks by the Indonesian judiciary.

In the undefended proceedings Comite International Olympique v. Firma Kemakmuran (74/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2013/PN. Niaga.Jkt.Pst), the Commercial Court of Jakarta refused to cancel the Defendant’s trademark OLYMPIQUE TEA TEH CAP OLIMPIADE & Device (see image below), which was registered in class 30 for use with tea.  The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed relief because it did not establish to the Court’s satisfaction that its Olympic rings trademark was well-known for tea.  In other words, the Court refused to grant this well-know mark (the olympic rings!) protection against registration of third party marks for dissimilar goods.

(image from DGIP online database)

The Trademark Law does accommodate protection for well-known trademarks against registrations for dissimilar goods.  The relevant provision is article 6 (2) of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks. The problem is that article 6(2) refers to implementing regulations, which have not yet been issued.  The result is a general lack of certainty, and in practice an expectation that well-known marks will not be enforced against dissimilar goods.

Supreme Court Justice files defamation charges

The Jakarta Globe reports (here) that Supreme Court Justice Gayus Lumbuun has filed a defamation charges against celebrity illusionist Deddy Corbuzier.  According to the complaint filed on 26 February 2014, Corbuzier is alleged to have defamed Justice Lumbuun when he asserted - on national TV - that the judge received bribe money from an accused party.

(Deddy Corbuzier, image from Jakarta Globe story)

Corruption is a sensitive issue everywhere, and particularly in Indonesia at the moment - we are observing increased levels of media attention.  In a country where defamation laws are notoriously vague and making a defamatory statement is a criminal offence (see our post on defamation laws here), it is necessary to proceed with caution when making any allegations or suggestions about corrupt behaviour.

The Supreme Court hears intellectual property matters at the cassation appeal and reconsideration appeal levels.

Supreme Court case records going (partially) electronic

In a move that will improve access to information and transparency, the Supreme Court has implemented new rules that require electronic filing of key documents in cassation and reconsideration appeals.

According to Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 1 of 2014, subsidiary Courts (including the Commercial Court) will be required to upload certain documents to the Supreme Court website (whereas current practice is to provide electronic copies on a CD-Rom or flash drive).  For intellectual property cases, the documents that will now (as of 1 March 2014) need to be uploaded are:

• notice of registration of intention to appeal;
• receipt of appeal brief;
• appeal brief;
• reply to appeal brief; and
• first-instance Court decision.

Absent from this list is the Evidence Brief.  This is a missed opportunity, as a review of the evidence submitted is usually instructive.  Commentators are known to report inaccurately on Commercial Court decisions when they make assumptions about what evidence has been submitted (or sometimes without even reading the Court’s decision at all!).

The Supreme Court already has a reputation for being a more reliable forum than the Commercial Court.  One reason for this is that it publishes its decision on its website, whereas the Commercial Court does not.

Court registered settlements

With the agreement of all parties, settlements can be registered with the Commercial Court to conclude a Claim.

Settlement agreements registered with the Court have equal status with a judgment, and can be enforced using Court resources in the event of non-compliance.  An example of a registered settlement was the case of The Absolut Company (Aktiebolag) v. Jie Kong (23/Pdt.Sus/Merek/2013/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst).  The dispute was settled by the parties on 9 July 2013, and the settlement agreement was accepted by the Court on 30 July 2013 following confirmation of agreement to the terms from the Plaintiff and Defendant.  The  involvement of the Co-Defendant - the Trademark Office - was not required.

Court decisions often include a paragraph confirming that judges have suggested litigating parties explore amicable settlement.  It is not often, though, that we see proceedings concluded in this way.  Settlement terms will of course be made public (as Court decisions are publicly accessible documents), which may be advantageous depending on the nature of the dispute.

There is no Court-ordered mediation of intellectual property disputes in the Commercial Court.  A system of Court-ordered mediation does exist in the District Court (for matters that do not concern intellectual property rights).