Trademark Indonesia: What Landmark Cases Reveal

Say you run a brand that is recognized in your home market and several others. Your legal team has the trademark secured globally, the product is ready, and Indonesia is next on the expansion list. The natural assumption is that the hard work is done. What many foreign investors discover too late is that none of that global groundwork carries automatic weight in Indonesia, and three real court rulings against TikTok, Puma, and Pierre Cardin show exactly what happens when that assumption goes untested.

The challenges Business Hub Asia hears about most often from foreign brands approaching Indonesia are variations of the same theme: the mark was not filed here early enough, the wrong product classes were covered, a conflicting local registration went unnoticed, or a deadline to challenge it was missed. These are not obscure technicalities. They are the specific reasons courts ruled against well-known global companies in the cases below, and they are entirely preventable with the right preparation. 

This article walks through how trademark Indonesia protection actually works, what these three landmark disputes reveal about where foreign investors get it wrong, and how BHA helps brands get ahead of those risks before they become courtroom problems.

Trademark Indonesia protection runs on a strict first-to-file system, and three landmark court disputes involving TikTok, Puma, and Pierre Cardin confirm that global brand reputation does not by itself secure legal ownership. Foreign investors who delay local registration, skip full class coverage, or miss statutory deadlines can lose their brand names to earlier local filers.

Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) processed 155,238 trademark applications in 2024, an 8.1 percent increase from the year before, and foreign filings rose from 31,165 to 35,670 over the same period, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization. This growth means competition for identical or similar marks keeps intensifying across nearly every product class.

Jakarta courts and the Supreme Court have repeatedly ruled against globally recognized brands because they failed to prove active market use, missed the five-year window to challenge a registration, or could not show substantial similarity under Indonesian law. Understanding these cases, and the current framework under Law No. 20 of 2016, is the starting point for any business planning to register or defend a trademark in Indonesia.

Why Do Trademark Indonesia Disputes Matter for Foreign Investors?

Indonesia’s trademark system prioritizes formal registration over common law rights. A delayed filing by a multinational brand can hand ownership of that name to a local applicant, even one with no international presence. Three court rulings show exactly how this happens in practice.

Courts have rejected claims from globally recognized companies, including TikTok, Puma, and Pierre Cardin, because they failed to meet statutory deadlines or prove active use in the Indonesian market. Registration timing and documented market presence carried more legal weight than brand fame in every ruling.

Authoritative reference: the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) under Indonesia’s Ministry of Law operates the country’s Trademark Register and confirms that protection is territorial, meaning a mark registered abroad carries no automatic rights inside Indonesia.

How Does Trademark Registration Indonesia Work?

Trademark registration Indonesia follows a fixed administrative sequence managed entirely through DJKI. Applicants, or their appointed local IP consultant, file an application specifying the mark and the relevant Nice Classification classes.

As of mid-2025, the Minister of Law and Human Rights confirmed that standard applications are now completed within a maximum of six months, down from the 8 to 24 months applicants previously experienced, following DJKI workflow reforms.

Registration lasts 10 years and can be renewed indefinitely for further 10-year terms, provided the renewal is filed within the six months before or after expiration. Indonesia has been a Madrid Protocol member since 2018, allowing international filings to designate the country directly.

Business Hub Asia-BHA’s legal team helps foreign applicants map the correct Nice Classification classes before filing, since a misclassified application at this stage is difficult and costly to correct later in the process.

Authoritative reference: KASS IP Group reported that DJKI eliminated its examination backlog in 2025, aligning Indonesia’s processing speed with several developed IP offices in the region.

What Do Trademark Registration Services Cover?

Trademark registration services typically extend well beyond filing paperwork. A capable local provider should cover clearance searching, class strategy, office action responses, opposition defense, renewal tracking, and coordination with litigation counsel if a dispute arises.

Foreign individuals or entities must file through a locally licensed IP consultant and provide a signed Power of Attorney, since Indonesian law does not permit direct self-filing by non-resident applicants. BHA’s market entry advisory team helps foreign investors coordinate trademark filing alongside company registration and compliance planning, so brand protection is not an afterthought.

Related article : Trademark Registration Indonesia: The Complete Guide for Foreign Brands

Three Notorious Trademark Cases in Indonesia

These three disputes, decided by Jakarta’s Commercial Courts and the Supreme Court, illustrate the practical consequences of the rules described above.

Case 1: TikTok Ltd vs. Fenfiana Saputra (2024)

TikTok filed at the West Jakarta Commercial Court to cancel a competitor’s Tik Tok mark covering baby clothes. TikTok held registrations in classes 6, 9, 16, 18, 35, and 42 since 2021, while Fenfiana Saputra held an older registration in class 25 dating to 2009.

The court found Fenfiana had produced actual goods under the Tik Tok label, with documented continuous sales from 2017 through 2024. Proof of active use blocked the cancellation, and the court ruled Fenfiana retained rights to the mark for apparel.

• Global brand dominance does not entitle a company to cancel a locally registered mark.
• Earlier registration dates in different product classes create separate, defensible legal rights.
• Proving active use with physical goods or sales records is a powerful defense.

Case 2: Puma SE vs. Muhammad Kimianto Ng (2020-2021)

Puma sued at Central Jakarta Commercial Court, alleging that PUMADA was confusingly similar to PUMA and registered in bad faith. Puma held class 25 sportswear registrations since 2008 and 2012, while Muhammad Kimianto Ng registered PUMADA in class 25 in 2017.

The Supreme Court disagreed with Puma’s similarity claim. It found no substantial likeness between PUMA and PUMADA, noting the extra syllable, different letter sequence, and distinct pronunciation created separate brand identities.

• Similarity alone is not enough; courts require substantial likeness in appearance, sound, and meaning.
• Bad faith claims without supporting evidence of copying or deceptive intent tend to fail.
• Minor spelling variations or added suffixes can create legally defensible differences.

Case 3: Pierre Cardin vs. Alexander Satryo Wibowo (2018)

Pierre Cardin sued Alexander Satryo Wibowo over Pierre Cardin registrations covering cosmetics and perfumes in class 3. Both parties held registrations under the same name and class, and Pierre Cardin’s rights dated back decades.

The Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit because it exceeded the five-year statute of limitations then set by Article 69 of the 2001 Trademark Law. The claim was filed too late, and the mark ultimately remained secured by the local registrant.

• A strict statute of limitations governs cancellation actions in ordinary disputes.
• Discovering a conflicting mark later does not restart the clock; the deadline runs from the registration date.
• Delayed action forfeits the legal remedy, regardless of the underlying merits.

An Original Framework: The Three-Layer Trademark Risk Check

These cases share a pattern that foreign investors can use as a quick internal audit before entering the Indonesian market or launching a new product line.

BHA’s legal team runs this three-layer check for incoming investors as part of pre-launch due diligence, flagging conflicting filings and use gaps before a brand commits to a market entry date.

Key Lessons From These Trademark Indonesia Disputes

What Should Foreign Businesses Do Now?

Conduct a comprehensive trademark audit in Indonesia before launch. Identify conflicting marks, confirm all relevant product classes, and document the planned market entry timeline. Many businesses file only in their home country first, assuming local registration can wait, an assumption these cases show can be costly.

Engage a locally licensed IP consultant with litigation experience. DJKI registration itself is administrative, but dispute resolution requires familiarity with Indonesian Commercial Court procedure and Supreme Court appellate strategy.

Document market activity continuously. Keep product launch records, sales invoices, distribution agreements, and advertising materials, since courts require concrete proof of active use in every non-use or infringement dispute.

Monitor the DJKI database on a recurring basis. Setting quarterly alerts for new filings in relevant classes preserves the full five-year window to respond to a conflicting registration.

BHA’s legal team supports foreign investors through this process, pairing regulatory advisory and market entry planning with trademark filing, DJKI monitoring, and coordination with litigation counsel if a dispute arises, so brand protection moves in step with company registration and compliance work.

Current Regulatory Reference for Trademark Indonesia Rules

Indonesia’s primary trademark statute is Law No. 20 of 2016 on Marks and Geographical Indications, which replaced the earlier Law No. 15 of 2001 and was further amended through the 2023 Job Creation omnibus law. The five-year cancellation deadline once cited as Article 69 under the 2001 law now corresponds to Article 77 of the 2016 law.

A 2024 Constitutional Court ruling, Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023 issued July 30, 2024, extended the non-use cancellation vulnerability period from three years to five years, easing pressure on small and medium enterprises affected by economic disruption.

Last updated: July 2026. Figures, deadlines, and legal references above reflect Law No. 20 of 2016 as amended, current DJKI processing data, and the 2024 Constitutional Court ruling described above.

Your Brand Deserves Strong Protection in Indonesia

None of these outcomes were accidents, and none are unavoidable either. Indonesia’s trademark system rewards the businesses that prepare early, and every pitfall in these three cases came with a clear, practical fix already available to any investor willing to act on it.

Foreign brands that file promptly, register across every relevant class, and keep solid proof of active use are in a strong position from day one. The path to a secure, defensible trademark in Indonesia is well marked, and getting started today is easier than most investors expect.

BHA’s legal team is ready to walk foreign investors through that path, from the first classification decision to ongoing DJKI monitoring, turning trademark protection into a source of confidence rather than a lingering worry.

TikTok, Puma, and Pierre Cardin did not lose in Indonesian courts because they lacked resources. They lost because the right moves were not made at the right time. Had any of them worked with a team that knows this market, the filings, the classes, the deadlines, the story would read very differently. That team exists. It is BHA. Contact us through the form below.