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

January 17, 2023

Indonesia’s New Criminal Code and Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Updates

Indonesia’s new Criminal Code was passed by Parliament on December 6, 2022, and ratified by the president and promulgated on January 2, 2023, as Law No. 1 of 2023. The new Criminal Code will take effect after three years (i.e., January 2, 2026) and is a complete overhaul of the previous version, much of which was based on Dutch law drafted during the colonial period. The Criminal Code currently in effect (sometimes referred to by the initials KUHP after its Indonesian name), dates from 1918 and was codified and unified in 1946 following Indonesia’s independence the year before.

Much of the news surrounding the new Criminal Code has focused on certain controversial passages in the new code, including articles that criminalize insulting the president, cohabitation, blasphemy, and sex outside of marriage, and limit the right to protest. Under the new Criminal Code, anyone found to have violated these provisions could be imprisoned for a period ranging from a few months to a few years.

Apart from the more controversial provisions, several articles in the new Criminal Code relate to intellectual property (IP). IP owners should be aware of these provisions in order to avoid committing punishable acts and to understand the criminal enforcement options for their IP rights. The most relevant parts of the law are discussed below.

Trademark and Branding Infringement

Under the new Criminal Code, the misuse of marks on goods or packaging is punishable by up to four years in prison or a maximum fine of IDR 500 million (approx. USD 32,735), possibly including indemnity. This misuse covers various acts of wrongfully affixing marks on goods or packaging—such as when a counterfeiter makes use of fake or unauthorized branding to falsely imply that goods are genuine. Prosecution of these criminal acts can only commence based on a complaint from the owner of the trademark at issue.

These new offenses under the Criminal Code are in addition to existing prohibitions on unauthorized use of another party’s trademark, which are found in Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographic Indications. Under this law, use of a mark that is identical or substantially similar to the registered mark of another party for similar goods or services is punishable by a fine of up to IDR 2 billion (approx. USD 130,940), imprisonment for up to four or five years (depending on the degree of similarity between the marks), or both.

While these existing provisions enable enforcement against trademark infringement through criminal proceedings, many trademark owners avoid filing criminal complaints against infringers and instead prefer to pursue alternative dispute resolution methods because it is less costly. However, if parties cannot reach an agreement during settlement negotiations, the case may progress to criminal proceedings in court.

Falsely Asserting Ownership of IP

Under the new Criminal Code, knowingly giving false testimony under oath (or otherwise of legal consequence) is punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years. Being convicted of this criminal offense may also result in revocation of various civil and political rights—including the right to vote.

This prohibition may apply to both IP prosecution and in IP-related court proceedings. For example, signing a declaration of ownership (for IP registration purposes) if the IP is similar to or copies the IP of another party may be deemed giving false testimony. Similarly, signing a declaration of use (for trademark renewal purposes) when the owner has not actually made use of the trademark may also expose the owner to accusations of giving false testimony.

Disclosure of Trade Secrets

Disclosure of an employer’s specialized information is a punishable criminal offense under the new Criminal Code, and a complaint from a company’s management is the starting point for prosecution of such an act. Those who are found to have disclosed secret specialized matters regarding a company where they work or have worked may face imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to IDR 50 million (approx. USD 3,274).

These provisions are intended to prevent unfair competition in the business world. Thus, the disclosure of specialized matters mentioned in the code can be interpreted as referring to dissemination of things that could lead to unfair business practices. This includes information that is not supposed to be publicly disclosed, such as company secrets and trade secrets.

Law No. 30 of 2000 on Trade Secrets states that something can be categorized as a trade secret (and thus can be used as the basis for a criminal report) if the information:

  • is not known by the public;
  • is in the field of technology or business;
  • has economic value; and
  • is kept confidential by the owner of the trade secret.

These provisions in the new Criminal Code are inseparable from provisions of Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. These stipulations prohibit business actors from conspiring with others to obtain competitors’ company secrets that can enable unfair business competition. However, these provisions specifically discuss competing “business actors” who try to obtain competitors’ confidential information rather than the individuals who disclose it, while the relevant provisions of the new Criminal Code expand criminal liability to individuals who provide or distribute such information to competing business actors.

Integration with Indonesian Law

Both the current Criminal Code and the new version stipulate that specific statutory provisions (e.g., those found in the Laws on Trademarks, Trade Secrets, Unfair Business Competition, etc.) prevail over the Criminal Code if there is any discrepancy. This means that if a criminal act is regulated by multiple laws, the applicable provisions in the specific laws take precedence over the Criminal Code’s provisions that apply to that same act. However, the provisions discussed above add some important clarity and expand some criminal offenses, so IP owners should take them into consideration when deciding on IP prosecution or enforcement strategy. This can help with anticipating risks of criminal punishment, as well as understanding the tools available for IP enforcement or litigation.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 7, 2023
On November 13, 2023, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) of Indonesia’s Ministry of Law and Human Rights held an offline workshop regarding intellectual property (IP).  One of the main discussion topics was the socialization of the proposed amendments to the Industrial Design Law. The proposed amendments to the Industrial Design Law contain a number of important changes, as outlined below. Industrial design definition The definition of an industrial design is clarified and emphasized in the draft law. An object protected through industrial design rights is “the outer appearance of a product,” gives an “aesthetic impression,” can be protected in whole or in part, and may be two- or three-dimensional. Registration system The protection period for industrial designs set by the draft law is 5 years, renewable for up to two additional five-year terms. This differs from the period provided under the current law, which is 10 years from the filing date, nonrenewable. Recordal system The draft law introduces a recordal system particularly for designs that have a relatively short commercial turnaround time, such as textile products. Recorded designs have a protection period of three years from the first publication. The recorded designs can become registered design applications by filing the design through the DGIP’s registration system no later than 12 months from its first publication. Details regarding the recordal system are not yet available. Nonregistrable industrial designs The draft law clarifies that the following are not registrable as industrial designs: Designs that do not give an aesthetic impression; Designs whose features are for purposes of technical functioning only; Folklore or traditional cultural expressions that have not been developed further; Designs contrary to the provisions of laws and regulations, public order, religion, or morality; and Designs filed in bad faith. International design applications The new law introduces a
Read More
November 27, 2023
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed the landscape for innovators and creators. As many legal practitioners have pointed out, it’s imperative for both developers of AI and artists using generative AI to understand the intricacies of intellectual property (IP) strategies so they can navigate this evolving terrain successfully. This article lays out some essential considerations relating to the major types of IP for both developers and creators in the realm of generative AI. IP Strategies for Developers of Generative AI Developers of generative AI technologies play a pivotal role in the innovation landscape. There are three overarching IP-related issues to consider: protecting their own intellectual property, mitigating the risk of violating other people’s IP rights, and IP commercialization. Key aspects of these concerns, along with suggested approaches for developers, are outlined below. Protecting IP Copyrights. One of the primary considerations for AI developers is the protection of AI-generated works, such as art and source code. The good news is that in most countries, these creations enjoy copyright protection without the need for registration. As a result, the works are automatically protected from the moment of creation. However, it’s crucial to maintain comprehensive records of your work to establish your ownership. Trademarks. Trademarks are vital for AI developers looking to establish and protect their brand. Pay close attention to Nice classifications, particularly class 9 (for software), class 35 (for business management and online marketing), and class 42 (for software design and development). Registering trademarks in these classes can provide robust protection for your brand and products. Patents. For truly innovative AI algorithms, techniques, or processes, consider the option of patenting. Patents offer strong protection, but they require a thorough application process and the documentation of your innovation, including evidence that the invention is novel, non-obvious, and practically
Read More
November 21, 2023
In this article originally published by World Trademark Review, Tilleke & Gibbins senior associate David Mol shares advice on how to collaborate effectively with customs officials at Cambodian border points and ports, offering a guide on how to successfully monitor for—and enforce against—counterfeit and grey market goods.   Can rights holders record trademark and brand-related IP information with Customs and, if so, how?   At present, there is no formal customs IP recordal system in place in Cambodia. However, rights holders may consider: a request letter to Customs; or recordal of an exclusive distributorship. Request letter to Customs A request letter to Customs would be an effective measure in cases where a rights holder is aware of a specific customs checkpoint that is being used to smuggle infringing goods. The rights holder may request to set up a meeting with Customs at the checkpoint to provide officials with: guidance on the issue; the IP rights involved; and information on product identification. The rights holder may further request the official’s assistance in monitoring shipments for certain goods. Customs has been open and cooperative in the past, setting up direct communication lines between rights holders and border officials. Officials then: monitor shipments; exchange sighting reports; and set up inspections where applicable. However, this option is not directly regulated under any laws or regulations, and can only be considered as an ad hoc approach in cases where the rights holder is aware of issues at a specific checkpoint. We usually do not recommend using this approach to alert all checkpoints in Cambodia, as it is rather time-intensive, requiring close cooperation and active liaison with officials. Instead, targeting specific checkpoints has proven to work in our experience. A request letter to Customs may apply to all types of intellectual property. However, a recently issued regulation that addresses suspensions
Read More
October 30, 2023
A Resounding Victory The last days of October brought some excitement for one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, Novartis, when its patent litigation case in Vietnam against a local generic manufacturer, which had stretched over more than eight years, finally came to an end. The background of this case is quite simple. Novartis was the owner of a patent protecting the active ingredient vildagliptin, which was commercialized through its Galvus® product, a medicine used to treat type 2 diabetes. In 2015, the company found that a drug manufacturer in Vietnam’s Binh Duong province on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City was producing a medicinal product containing the vildagliptin active ingredient—an infringement of its patent. Novartis first submitted a request to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to apply administrative sanctions on this infringer. Subsequently, the MOST Inspectorate concluded in July 2015 that the defendant had committed patent infringement and ordered them to stop producing the infringing drugs and recall them from the market. However, the defendant did not comply with the conclusion, and sought an appeal while it continued to produce the infringing medicine. Realizing that administrative sanctions were not strict enough to deter the defendant, Novartis continued to protect its legitimate rights and interests by initiating a lawsuit at the provincial court where the defendant was headquartered, Binh Duong. Novartis claimed that the defendant had infringed the patent and requesting the defendant to compensate for damages at the highest level allowed by law, pay attorney fees, and publicly apologize to Novartis in specialized newspapers. This began a long journey full of challenges that finally ended with the second appellate judgment declared by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City on October 17, 2023. The court accepted all claims raised by the
Read More