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

August 30, 2024

Indonesian Court Extends Trademark Non-Use Period, Risking Far-Reaching Consequences

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country.

Background of the Case

Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement.

On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation.

Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court.

Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from two IP consultants in the country. Their brief argued that Mr. Thio did not have a valid reason to file the suit with the Constitutional Court, as no personal rights had been violated. Also, they noted that the Trademark Law provided sufficient means for protecting Mr. Thio’s rights and interests.

Constitutional Court’s Decision

After considering the evidence, the Constitutional Court issued Decision No. 144, amending the period of non-use cancellation from three to five consecutive years from the registration date or the date of last use. The Constitutional Court also added force majeure as an exemption from non-use cancellation.

In examining the request for judicial review of Article 74, the Constitutional Court noted that:

  • The TRIPS Agreement mentions the three-year period as a minimum (i.e., “…the registration may be canceled only after an uninterrupted period of at least three years of non-use…”).
  • A five-year non-use period would align with the period for filing a trademark invalidation action, as a lawsuit for trademark invalidation can be filed within five years of the application date.
  • Indonesia has the authority to establish laws that do not contradict international laws the country has ratified.
  • In general, common-law countries (e.g., Singapore, the United Kingdom) have a five-year period due to the first-to-use principle, while civil-law countries (e.g., Japan) have a three-year period due to the first-to-file principle. Indonesia’s fundamental philosophy, pancasila, should empower and assist SMEs by providing them with more time to prepare for using and producing goods or services bearing their trademarks.
  • SMEs take more time than large companies to develop their business and to gather capital, and the three-year period could be a tool enabling unfair competition against SMEs.

Impact

Decision No. 144 came into force immediately. Starting from July 30, 2024, plaintiffs in non-use cancellation lawsuits must provide evidence that the concerned registered trademark has not been used for five consecutive years. This means that any interested third party may need to wait and observe longer before filing a non-use cancellation action. Those who were in the process of preparing a non-use cancellation action must ensure that their market survey has gathered evidence of non-use for a consecutive five-year period, which may entail waiting for up to another two years.

Theoretically, it will also take more effort to gather evidence of use. On the other hand, the additional period adds more time for trademark owners (including startups and SMEs) to form and refine their business plans.

While Decision No. 144 has granted force majeure as an exemption, the government will need to issue an implementing regulation for this. Force majeure is not yet a valid reason for not using a trademark registration in Indonesia.

As for the question of whether Mr. Thio gains any benefit from Decision No. 144 on the non-use lawsuit filed by Zhejiang Dahua, it may not matter much, as Zhejiang Dahua’s lawsuit was considered defective due to the improper formalities in the first instance. In May 2024, the Supreme Court confirmed the Central Jakarta Commercial Court decision to deem the lawsuit not acceptable as it combined the request to delete the registration with a request to register the company’s own trademark.

Ironically, Mr. Thio’s trademark was registered on June 2, 2017. Hence, it is still vulnerable to a non-use cancellation action as it has gone unused for more than five years. It seems that Mr. Thio may not be able to rely on Decision No. 144 to overcome any future non-use lawsuit if the concerned trademark continues to go unused.

Final Considerations

It is interesting to note that the Constitutional Court continued its judicial review of Article 74 even though it knew Mr. Thio was a defendant in an ongoing non-use cancellation lawsuit. Ideally, the Constitutional Court would have refused Mr. Thio’s request for judicial review in its entirety, as there was a strong indication that the decision might be used for avoiding the existing non-use cancellation lawsuit.

Decision No. 144 may inspire other parties in the future to view revoking a relevant provision from the IP laws as an alternative route to win a case. If the Constitutional Court does not forbid parties involved in an active legal action from submitting judicial review requests, there could be similar cases in the future, with infringers or trademark squatters asking for relevant articles to be deleted instead of directly responding to IP lawsuits. These “creative” constitutional lawsuits could result in repeated changes to Indonesia’s IP laws, possibly even affecting public order through a lack of legal certainty.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 30, 2026
Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection
Read More
September 30, 2026
Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had
Read More
September 24, 2026
Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond
Read More
September 21, 2026
Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad
Read More