The Importance of Intellectual Property Law in Indonesia

Oct 13, 2025 by wbrum.org 107 views

The Importance of Intellectual Property Law in Indonesia

Intellectual property law plays a crucial role in protecting the rights of brand owners in Indonesia. The use of the Interco brand has become a significant topic in the realm of intellectual property law, especially related to the decision of the Commercial Court at the Medan District Court with case number 1/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Brand/2020/PN Niaga MDN, which is reinforced by the decision of the Court Agung Number 1333K/PDT.Sus-HKI/2021. In this context, it is essential to understand that these decisions emphasize the principle of "First to File" in force in Indonesia. This principle requires the first brand registrant to get legal protection for the brand he registered, with the aim of avoiding overlapping and dispute between the brand owner.

The Principle of "First to File" in Brand Law

Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Brands and Geographical Indications confirms the application of the "First to File" system. This system gives the virtue to the party who first registered the brand. In the case of the Interco brand, the party who first registered has a protection rights in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Law. The Commercial Court in Medan in its decision reinforces the claim from the plaintiff who stated that the defendant had violated the principle, because the brand registered by the Defendant had similarities with the Plaintiff's brand.

The Process of Resolving Brand Disputes

The process of resolving brand disputes based on Law No. 20 of 2016 covers various mechanisms, both litigation and non-litigation. In this context, the litigation mechanism is carried out through the submission of an appeal to the Appeal Commission and Submitting a lawsuit in the Commercial Court. In the Interco case, dispute resolution is carried out through litigation, where the Plaintiff submitted a request for a brand cancellation registered by the Defendant.

The Verdict of the Commercial Court

The verdict of the Commercial Court in Medan in the first phase found that the Plaintiff had a strong argument, where the judge stated that the Defendant's brand had been registered in a bad faith and had the same principle with the Plaintiff's brand. This was reinforced by the Supreme Court's decision which rejected the appeal from the defendant, emphasized that the Defendant violated the principle of "first to file."

Implications for Brand Registration Practices

The results of this case provide important lessons for the Directorate General of Intellectual Property to be more careful in verifying brand registration. Disputes like this often harm the legitimate brand owner. Therefore, clearer regulations are needed and tighter procedures in the registered brand assessment. In addition, it is hoped that the decision of the judge who handles the brand cases is more in-depth and clear in providing arguments, so that it is more easily understood by the wider community.

The Importance of Understanding Brand Law

In the future, it is essential for all parties, both brand owners and government institutions, to understand the principles that exist in brand law. This is so that every brand registration action can run in accordance with applicable provisions and reduce the potential for disputes in the future.

Conclusion

Interco brand use dispute shows how important the application of the principle of "first to file" in brand protection. Through this case study, we learn that compliance with existing legal provisions can prevent disputes and protect the rights of brand owners. Hope for improvement in future regulations is very necessary so that the practice of brand registration can be more effective and efficient, and can provide legal certainty for all stakeholders in the field of intellectual property.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should focus on the following areas:

The application of the "First to File" principle in other countries
The impact of brand disputes on the economy and society
The role of government institutions in resolving brand disputes
The importance of education and awareness in brand law

Keywords

Brand
First to File
Disputes
Brand Law
Interco

References

Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Brands and Geographical Indications
Decision of the Commercial Court at the Medan District Court with case number 1/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Brand/2020/PN Niaga MDN
Decision of the Court Agung Number 1333K/PDT.Sus-HKI/2021

Q: What is the principle of "First to File" in brand law?

A: The principle of "First to File" in brand law requires the first brand registrant to get legal protection for the brand he registered, with the aim of avoiding overlapping and dispute between the brand owner.

Q: What is the significance of the Commercial Court's decision in the Interco case?

A: The Commercial Court's decision in the Interco case reinforces the principle of "First to File" and emphasizes the importance of complying with existing legal provisions to prevent disputes and protect the rights of brand owners.

Q: What are the implications of the Interco case for brand registration practices?

A: The Interco case highlights the need for the Directorate General of Intellectual Property to be more careful in verifying brand registration and for clearer regulations and tighter procedures in the registered brand assessment.

Q: What is the role of government institutions in resolving brand disputes?

A: Government institutions play a crucial role in resolving brand disputes by providing a platform for brand owners to resolve their disputes and by enforcing the law to prevent disputes and protect the rights of brand owners.

Q: What is the importance of education and awareness in brand law?

A: Education and awareness in brand law are essential for brand owners and government institutions to understand the principles that exist in brand law and to comply with existing legal provisions to prevent disputes and protect the rights of brand owners.

Q: What are the potential consequences of not complying with brand law?

A: The potential consequences of not complying with brand law include disputes, legal action, and damage to the reputation of the brand owner.

Q: What are the benefits of complying with brand law?

A: The benefits of complying with brand law include preventing disputes, protecting the rights of brand owners, and providing legal certainty for all stakeholders in the field of intellectual property.

Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court's decision in the Interco case?

A: The Supreme Court's decision in the Interco case reinforces the principle of "First to File" and emphasizes the importance of complying with existing legal provisions to prevent disputes and protect the rights of brand owners.

Q: What are the implications of the Interco case for future brand registration practices?

A: The Interco case highlights the need for brand owners and government institutions to be more careful in verifying brand registration and for clearer regulations and tighter procedures in the registered brand assessment.

Q: What is the importance of understanding brand law for brand owners?

A: Understanding brand law is essential for brand owners to comply with existing legal provisions, prevent disputes, and protect the rights of brand owners.

Q: What are the potential consequences of not understanding brand law?

A: The potential consequences of not understanding brand law include disputes, legal action, and damage to the reputation of the brand owner.

Q: What are the benefits of understanding brand law for brand owners?

A: The benefits of understanding brand law include preventing disputes, protecting the rights of brand owners, and providing legal certainty for all stakeholders in the field of intellectual property.

Keywords

Brand
First to File
Disputes
Brand Law
Interco

References

Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Brands and Geographical Indications
Decision of the Commercial Court at the Medan District Court with case number 1/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Brand/2020/PN Niaga MDN
Decision of the Court Agung Number 1333K/PDT.Sus-HKI/2021