Corruption & rule of law

In the ongoing struggle to reduce corruption and establish rule of law, we’ve seen two steps forward and one step back.

The building site for Jakarta’s new Administrative Court (PTUN) has been sealed, after authorities found that building permits had been faked (see Jakarta Post article here).  This is apparently the first time a government building site has been subjected to sanctions by the Jakarta Building Supervision Agency.  While the Court will no doubt be embarrassed by these events, the fact that it has been sanctioned and required to obtain a legitimate permit demonstrates that even the Courts are subject to the laws of the land, and represents a positive step forward.

Indonesia’s national police Chief General Sutarman has publicly reminded his police officers not to engage in corrupt activities in a speech last December (see photo below, from Jakarta Globe).  Any moves to improve public perception of the police is welcome, particularly considering that according to a Jakarta Globe article (see here) the police force is regarded as one of the most corrupt institutions in Indonesia.

However, according to the same Jakarta Globe article, General Sutarman has also gone on record as supporting the prosecution of a University of Indonesia academic over comments made about corruption in the police force.  Adrianus Meliala, criminologist at the University of Indonesia and member of the national police advisory board, made allegations about corruption in the General Crimes Division of West Java regional police (note: IP cases are heard by the Special Crimes Division).  Making defamatory statements is a criminal offence in Indonesia, and it appears the police are willing to see this through the Court.  This news, and the case if it is indeed prosecuted, will have a chilling effect on anyone minded to speak out against corruption , and a lack of public dialogue will only hamper efforts to tackle the corruption problem.

Classification training for DGIP

DGIP officers have been attending training on classification of trademarks this week.

According to the DGIP blog (see here), training on the Nice and Vienna classification systems is being conducted by the DGIP and WIPO from 25 to 29 August 2014.  The Nice Classification system deals with classification of goods and services, and the Vienna Classification system deals with classification of figurative elements of trademarks.

The Indonesian Trademark Office hasn’t actually adopted the Nice Classification system.  However, it does use it as a guide, and in practice follows the Nice system closely.  The DGIP blog story also notes that all ASEAN member countries have agreed to implement the Madrid Protocol (see our post here), which applies the Nice Classification system.

It's great to see substantive progress towards a functional AEC (ASEAN Economic Community) system of prosecution of intellectual property rights.

AKHKI-DGIP Halal Bihalal, new Copyright Law and IP Mediation

AKHKI (Indonesian IP Consultant's Association) on 20 August 2014 held a Halal Bihalal event (a social gathering that follows Eid ul Fitr celebrations). The event was attended by 60 IP Consultants, all directors of Directorate General of Intellectual Property offices, and the Indonesian 2014 IPR Ambassador, Afgan Syahreza (an Indonesian pop singer).

It was encouraging to hear from the Director General of Intellectual Property Rights of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (DGIP), Ahmad M.Ramli, that the new Copyright Law is now being reviewed by the House of Representatives (DPR) Working Committee (Panja DPR).  This new Copyright Law is one of 66 laws in the National Program of Legislation in 2014 that is scheduled to be debated this year (see our post here). At the Halal Bihalal event, the Director General also shared that in May 2014, the Director General and the Director General of WIPO entered into a  Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) concerning the Provision of Alternative Dispute Resolution Services to Parties Involved in Cases Filed with DGIPR”. He mentioned that going forward, the DGIP will coordinate a number of programs to develop Alternative Dispute Resolution Services, including to increase numbers of mediators and arbitrators with IPR expertise, with a view to encouraging disputed parties to settle disputes through mediation or other ADR processes before filing complaints with the DGIP.

Wine fraud

An Indonesian national has been featuring in the news for all the wrong reasons, after being caught peddling counterfeit wine in the United States.

According to a BBC story (see here), Rudy Kurniawan was found to have run a counterfeiting operation from 2004 to 2012.  During this time he mixed vintage wine with newer batches, and filled and labelled his own bottles.  These were then sold at auction.  He was ordered to pay USD28.4million in compensation to victims, which presumably represents the value of sales over that time - not insignificant.  The Court also sentenced him to serve 10 years and to pay USD20million in fines.

Counterfeiting is a huge problem in Indonesia, but we rarely see cases concerning wine.  That would be because levels of consumption are relatively low.  Here's hoping counterfeit wine doesn’t become a problem when Kurniawan is returned to Indonesia after serving his time.

Monkey selfie

The famous monkey selfie story has been stirred up again, and has been featuring in the mainstream media as well as on IP blogs.

In brief, the facts are that nature photographer David Slater had his camera snatched by a Macaque in an Indonesian jungle, and the cheeky monkey pressed the shutter button - taking this brilliant selfie:

The case itself is old news (2011) but now it’s being discussed again (see The New Yorker story here, for example) because Wikipedia has refused to remove the photograph from its website at David Slater's request - he says the image was posted without seeking his permission to do so.  What makes this dispute particularly interesting and amusing is:

1. the expression on the monkey’s face is hilarious;
2. David Slater claims he owns copyright in the image because the monkey used his camera;
3. others say the monkey owns copyright in the image because he pressed the button (the Copyright Law says the photographer is whoever pushed the button, regardless of who owns the camera);
4. Wikipedia says that the image is public domain, because the photographer was not human and provisions of the Copyright Law therefore do not apply; and
5. to complicate matters even more, others say that if the image was edited (e.g. using Photoshop) then whoever did the editing owns copyright in the image.

At the end of the day everyone but the monkey emerges with a win.  Wikipedia is seen as a champion of sharing culture, David Slater gets some free publicity, and the rest of us have a good laugh.

Curious patent practice note

A strange note on responding to Patent Office correspondence was circulated back in June 2014, and try as we might we’ve still not been able to find out what was behind it.

The circular note, addressed to patent applicants and IP Consultants (dated 16 June 2014, No. HKI.3-H1.05.02.229), grants an extension of time for responding to Patent Office notices concerning examination.  The extension applies to any applications for which the period for substantive examination has expired but in respect of which the Patent Office has not yet issued any examination report.  In those cases, a response could be filed within one month from the date of the circular (until 16 July 2014).

Our curiosity has been aroused - what was behind the decision to grant this extension of time?  Perhaps our readers could shed some light on the matter.

Acquisition-ready IP portfolios

The Bali-based John Hardy jewellery company has been acquired by private equity firm Catterton Partners in a deal worth USD100million - USD120million, according to The Beat Daily.

From an intellectual property perspective the deal is interesting because John Hardy has an aggressive design prosecution strategy.  Applications filed by John Hardy regularly feature in the Design Gazettes, and a significant portfolio of registered design rights has been assembled.  No doubt the value of the designs portfolio featured in negotiations leading up to the deal.

While it is often said that rights holders face significant challenges in navigating Indonesia’s IP infrastructure, it is also true that participation in the system is a prerequisite to achieving any results.  Securing registered IP rights facilities enforcement and secures value.  In John Hardy’s case this positioned the company well for acquisition.

Indonesian legislature on hold

Although we officially return to work in Indonesia today (following a week of public holidays - see our post here), the legislature is effectively on hold as the country works through the results of what has been a fascinating election.

Elections for the House of Representatives were held in April 2014, and for the office of President in July 2014.  The later proved to be a hot race between the current Governor of Jakarta, Joko Widodo, and former army general Prabowo Subianto.  Official results in the presidential election were close, with roughly 53% of the vote going to Widodo and 47% to Subianto.  Wikipedia has a good post that covers some the legalities and controversies.  Subianto has rejected the official results, and is  currently mounting various challenges.

For as long as Subianto's challenges remain unresolved it is unlikely that the House of Representatives will pass any laws.  The 2015 State Budget bill, for example, has been put on hold by current president, Susilo Bambang Yudhiono, pending the outcome of Subianto's Constitutional Court challenge (see Jakarta Post article here).

When the House of Representatives does get back to work, we should see some IP-related activity.  A new Copyright Law is already on the legislative agenda (see our post here), and a new Trademark Law needs to be passed between now and 31 December 2015 to accommodate introduction of the Madrid Protocol (see our post here).