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​ 

July 3, 2023
Southeast Asia has experienced a significant increase in foreign investment, which has not only brought innovation but also raised questions about protecting such innovation. Investors are increasingly interested in patenting the proprietary technology that plays a vital role in numerous businesses today. Recently, particular interest has been shown in innovations related to artificial intelligence (AI) technology and software. Are these types of innovations patentable, and if so, how? When it comes to Southeast Asia, the answers to these questions are not straightforward, due to the lack of uniform patent laws across the region. Issues of Patentability The patentability of computer software has long been a topic of discussion, predating the emergence of AI tools. Many jurisdictions have specific rules regarding the patentability of software. Pure software, defined solely by source code, may not qualify for patent protection but can be safeguarded under copyright laws. AI-related software often involves intricate algorithms, datasets, and training methodologies that pose challenges when it comes to satisfying the enablement requirement for disclosure. However, algorithms, mathematical methods, and abstract ideas are generally considered non-patentable subject matter in many jurisdictions. Although software implementing AI may incorporate innovative algorithms, obtaining patents solely for algorithms can be difficult in certain countries. For instance, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam explicitly exclude computer programs from patentable subject matter. However, a potential workaround in these countries is to describe the software as being connected to a tangible medium. This approach could overcome rejections based on subject matter during substantive examination. Moreover, in Indonesia, a computer program can be eligible for patent protection if its characteristics (i.e., instructions) have a technical effect and serve to address a tangible or intangible problem. Among Southeast Asian countries, Singapore has the most lenient patent regime, even explicitly addressing AI innovations. The country has implemented a
Read More
June 23, 2023
April and May witnessed intriguing developments within Vietnam’s intellectual property community. On the legislation side, of particular note was the issuance of Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP on April 26, coinciding with World IP Day. Decree 17 provides guidance on implementation of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law with regard to copyright and related rights, and has garnered significant attention due to several issues, especially the liability of intermediary (internet) service providers and copyright violation in the digital environment. Additionally, two noteworthy IP cases have emerged, albeit with limited public disclosure and awareness of specific details. Nonetheless, these cases are expected to have far-reaching implications. Copyright: Criminal Case Against Unauthorized Broadcasting of Football Matches For a considerable period of time, Vietnamese football enthusiasts have enjoyed being able to watch matches on TV and online from numerous top global football leagues. While many of these broadcasts were legitimate, with the rights purchased by Vietnamese and regional broadcasters, the unauthorized transmission and broadcasting of football matches on the internet has become increasingly prevalent. Authorities have seemingly faced challenges in curbing this issue through criminal action. In a positive development, in early May the Hanoi police decided to open a criminal proceeding against the unauthorized transmission and broadcasting of high-profile overseas football matches after a rigorous two-year investigation. Prior to this decision, authorities encountered difficulties in accurately determining the relevant laws and the nature of the violation to meet the requirements for prosecution. Specifically, they grappled with the question of whether a football match, or more specifically, a recorded video of a football match, could be considered a copyrighted work. If copyright protection extended to football matches and/or recorded videos, then transmitting and broadcasting these matches directly through the internet could be deemed illegal acts of copying or distributing (copyrighted) works, as outlined in Article
Read More
May 23, 2023
Life sciences specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Bangkok have contributed a new “Life Sciences Commercialization in Thailand” chapter to the Life Sciences Global Guide from Practical Law. The Q&A-style guide provides strategic information for companies active in the life sciences sector in Thailand. The chapter covers a number of key areas: Overview of the life sciences sector Pricing, government funding, and reimbursement: National health care system, price regulation and reimbursement Distribution and sale Cross-border trade and parallel imports Advertising and engagement with patient organizations Patents: Conditions for patentability, registration, length of protection, infringement, international treaties Trademarks: Requirements, registration Competition law issues: Authorities and legislation, commercial contracts and competition law, licensing approvals and formalities Product liability: Regulators, medicinal product liability law, liable partners, defenses, product liability claims, remedies Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The full “Life Sciences Commercialization in Thailand” section can be found on the Practical Law website.
Read More
May 19, 2023
On May 16, 2023, Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) announced an extension of one more month for submission of notarized appointment of representative forms (or “TM-2 forms”) and for payment of official filing fees for trademarks. The new deadline for payment and submission is June 30, 2023. The IPD had announced in April 2023 that fee payments and submission of notarized TM-2 forms for trademarks prior to the enforcement of the Trademark Law (i.e., from October 1, 2020, to April 2, 2023) had to be completed by May 31, 2023. However, technical issues have hindered the IPD’s online filing system, which has had to undergo maintenance procedures. The extension until June 30, 2023, gives mark owners more time to prepare the necessary notarized TM-2 forms for their mark applications filed prior to enforcement of the Trademark Law . For more information on the country’s new trademark system, or on any aspect of protecting intellectual property rights in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More