You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

September 1, 2020

Apparel Company Has Legal Success in Combating Knockoffs in Indonesia

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

A leading apparel company based in Spain, Original Buff, S.A., designs and produces apparel for outdoor, active, urban, and everyday wear. Their flagship product is a multifunctional, seamless, tubular headgear item, first created in 1992, with the mark BUFF, which was registered in Spain in 1994, followed by registrations in over 110 countries worldwide in class 25 (clothing).

In Indonesia this registration was obtained in 2010, but by June 2011, a similar mark (for similar goods) had been submitted by a local Indonesian business for trademark registration, seemingly trying to take unfair advantage of the well-known reputation of the Original Buff’s highly recognized BUFF products. The similar mark was “RUFF,” and Original Buff filed an opposition when it was published in 2014. However, in 2015 the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) rejected this opposition and finally approved the RUFF mark for registration.

Going to Court

In 2019 Original Buff filed a cancellation lawsuit asking the Indonesian Commercial Court to invalidate the RUFF mark because of the mark’s substantial similarity to the BUFF mark, coupled with an indication of bad faith because of the similarity of the goods bearing the mark—even down to the pattern used on the products.    

After the case went through multiple hearings, in January 2020 the Indonesian Commercial Court of Central Jakarta issued a favorable decision for Original Buff regarding the cancellation action against the RUFF mark. The court determined that the RUFF mark in class 25 must be invalidated from the Indonesian General Register of Trademarks as the mark bears substantial similarity to the well-known BUFF mark owned by Original Buff. In addition, the court ruled that the defendant had registered the RUFF mark in bad faith, and ordered the defendant to pay a nominal amount in court fees.

In its verdict, the court concluded that the BUFF and RUFF marks are similar in sound, if it is sounded in the Indonesian language, and the difference in writing is only in the prefix “B” and “R”. This would result in the BUFF mark’s consumers or users being deceived or misled by the RUFF mark. The court also ruled that the BUFF mark can be categorized as a well-known mark based on evidence of continuous use and the promotional materials submitted as evidence. They further determined that the RUFF mark was filed with the intention to ride on the well-known reputation of the BUFF mark—that is, it was filed in bad faith.

The court also refused the defendant’s counter-claims that the expiration date for submission of a cancellation lawsuit had passed, that there were problems with the plaintiff’s formality requirements (power of attorney and articles of association), and that the cancellation lawsuit lacked a party because the DGIP was not a co-defendant. Instead, the court concluded that the cancellation lawsuit had fulfilled the timing and formality requirements for cancellation lawsuit proceedings, and that the absence of the DGIP as co-defendant did not mean the cancellation lawsuit lacked a party.

Although the defendant submitted an appeal against the decision with the Supreme Court, and the decision of the appeal has not yet come out, the favorable decision at the first instance is a promising sign for Original Buff after nearly a decade of fighting against the RUFF mark.

Options for combating a registered mark in Indonesia are notably limited. Essentially, a party could either seek private negotiations with the owner of the registered mark in question, or take it to court by  proceeding with a cancellation lawsuit. In the case described in this article, Original Buff had been acting since before the offending mark was even registered, with their opposition to the mark. After their opposition was rejected and the mark registered, they eventually decided to seek recourse from the courts, even though filing a cancellation lawsuit can be both costly and slow. What’s more, claims of compensation are not available under cancellation lawsuits, as in Indonesia, such claims are only available in an infringement lawsuit. Nonetheless, Original Buff realized that control of their intellectual property was essential for the longevity and sustainability of their business in Indonesia. While the appeal is still working its way through the courts, the initial victory is encouraging and appears to lay the groundwork for the elimination of a perennial threat to their intellectual prop- erty rights in Indonesia.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 14, 2026
Myanmar’s first-to-file trademark registration regime under the Trademark Law 2019—which became fully operational in April 2023—provides mark owners with enhanced legal protection compared with the country’s former system. Correspondingly, the current system imposes more rigorous statutory requirements for obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing rights in marks. In this first-to-file trademark registration system, however, evidence of use remains particularly significant, as it may establish acquired distinctiveness, support a claim that a mark is well-known, and strengthen the owner’s position in both registration and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it can be said that this framework is underpinned by three key concepts: distinctiveness, well-known status, and, importantly, use of the trademark. Trademark Distinctiveness Under the Trademark Law, signs that lack distinctiveness are generally ineligible for mark protection. These signs include generic terms, basic shapes, unstylized single letters or numerals, and signs that merely describe the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, production time, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services. However, a mark that would otherwise be refused on distinctiveness or descriptiveness grounds may be registrable if it has acquired distinctiveness through its use prior to the filing date. To show this, the applicant must demonstrate that the mark became distinctive to relevant consumers through continuous, exclusive, and good-faith use in trade within Myanmar. The burden of proving acquired distinctiveness rests with the mark owner. Accordingly, sufficient evidence demonstrating both use of the mark and the level of consumer recognition attained should be prepared in advance. Well-Known Mark Criteria Myanmar’s Trademark Rules, which govern the substantive examination of mark registration applications, establish criteria for determining well-known marks, aligned with international standards. Where an applicant claims well-known status—whether to overcome a refusal on relative grounds or to oppose a third party’s registration—the registrar will assess the claim based on the following
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More