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

April 29, 2025

Indonesian Court Rules Against Bad-Faith Trademark Registrations

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia.

Background

Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions.

In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia.

Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success.

Initial Approach

Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database.

Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually satisfactory settlement, first by seeking voluntary deletion or assignment of the BITMAIN and ANTMINER registered trademarks. However, the local party declined Bitmain’s request and insisted on resolving the case through mediation or litigation. After considering their options, Bitmain decided to file cancellation lawsuits against the trademarks.

To support the lawsuits, thorough research and investigation on the trademark squatter were conducted to gather evidence supporting Bitmain’s argument. This step was crucial in strengthening Bitmain’s case, particularly in demonstrating the local party’s bad-faith intentions and the impact on Bitmain’s business. In the investigation, it was revealed that the adversary had been using BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks to sell Bitmain’s ANTMINER products in Indonesia. In addition, the investigation found that the adversary owned a website explicitly stating that BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks are owned by Bitmain.

Litigation Process

After gathering the necessary evidence through investigations, Bitmain, through Tilleke & Gibbins’ local litigation partner, filed two cancellation actions against the local party in the Central Jakarta Commercial Court, citing bad faith as the main legal basis for the lawsuits.

After numerous hearings, in November 2024 the judges ruled in favor of Bitmain, ultimately declaring that Bitmain is the rightful owner of the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks. We were able to successfully convince the Commercial Court that the local party filed the trademarks in bad faith, as the trademarks are identical to Bitmain’s trademarks, which had been used and registered in various countries long before the bad-faith applications. The Commercial Court also held that the local party’s BITMAIN trademark is identical to Bitmain’s legal entity name.

Furthermore, we successfully proved that the local party had been using these trademarks to sell Bitmain’s cryptocurrency mining machine, ANTMINER, which indicated that the trademarks had been registered with the intention of using them in commerce, potentially leading to unfair business competition and deceiving or misleading consumers. There was a high likelihood that consumers would assume the local party was affiliated with Bitmain, which was not the case.

Lastly, the local party’s bad faith was further highlighted by the explicit acknowledgment on their website stating that BITMAIN and ANTMINER are owned by Bitmain. Consequently, the court invalidated all of the trademarks and ordered the Directorate General of Intellectual Property to remove the trademarks from the Trademark Registry.

Outlook

Indonesia’s first-to-file system has faced numerous challenges, creating opportunities for trademark squatters to exploit the system. The results of the Bitmain case present a promising outlook for Indonesia’s intellectual property regime, suggesting that even though Indonesia has adopted the first-to-file principle, its application is not absolute—there are certain limitations, one of which is that the application cannot be made in bad faith.

Despite this success, certain challenges remain. Since cancellation actions are full litigation conducted in the Commercial Court, the process remains time-consuming and costly. Nevertheless, this case highlights the importance of addressing bad-faith intentions in trademark registration and serves as a reminder that the legal system can protect rightful trademark owners against unfair practices.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More