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​ 

October 10, 2023
As part of its continual work to improve Indonesia’s intellectual property (IP) e-filing system, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) makes regular updates and upgrades to the system. In recent months, the DGIP has implemented several important changes from previously used versions that applicants should be aware of when filing IP applications. Below is a summary of some key changes and updated requirements for applications using the IP e-filing system, grouped by IP type. Designs Drawings must be in JPG format only, and only one view is allowed per page. Once payment for the application has been made, no refund request is available. Only one figure is allowed for each design view, except for reference and perspective views. Patents For inventions already registered outside Indonesia through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the title of the invention in the application for registration in Indonesia must match the title of the invention as registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). All bibliographic data in the national phase application must match the information from the PCT international phase as listed on WIPO’s website. Excess claim fees must be paid at the time of filing the patent application. Trademarks Applicants must choose their desired goods and services from the list, and the wording used in the provided list is not editable. The DGIP frequently updates the list of goods and services, but there is no regular schedule for the updates to this database. It is very difficult to request the addition of goods or services to the list, especially if a similar alternative exists. Therefore, it is crucial for applicants to decide on the goods or services to indicate in the application as soon as possible before the list is updated, as goods and services are sometimes deleted from the list.
Read More
September 28, 2023
Protecting the aesthetic features of consumer items, such as household appliances, is essential for businesses looking to gain a competitive edge, particularly in the dynamic markets of Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand. Industrial design registrations (or design patents in Thailand) provide an effective means to protect the unique and ornamental designs of products, ensuring that their distinctive appearance is not imitated by competitors. This article provides a general overview of design systems in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand, as well as some key considerations for businesses and rights holders. All three of these countries use an examination system for assessing applications to protect designs. While all three jurisdictions are members of the Paris Convention, only Vietnam has fully completed the process of becoming a member of the Hague Agreement. The table below offers a general comparison of the three countries’ design systems, with additional details provided in the subsequent sections. Vietnam Owners of a household appliance design may seek design rights in Vietnam by filing a national design application at the Vietnam IP Office or by filing an international design application designating Vietnam either directly with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or indirectly through the office of the applicant’s contracting party under the Hague Agreement. Vietnam’s 2022 IP Law redefines “industrial design” as the external appearance of a product or part thereof to be assembled into a complex product, represented by shapes, lines, colors, or a combination thereof, and visible in the process of exploiting the utility of the product or complex product. The two options for obtaining design rights in Vietnam are detailed below. Vietnam National Design Application As Vietnam is a signatory to the Paris Convention, applicants are entitled to a six-month convention priority period from the filing date of the corresponding application in another jurisdiction. Under Vietnam’s
Read More
September 22, 2023
The most familiar and well-protected IP rights are copyrights, patents, and trademarks. However, geographical indications (GIs) are also protected by TRIPS, and are perhaps the most contested rights worldwide. Like a trademark, a GI identifies the origin of goods, but refers to a particular region which yields product qualities that cannot be replicated elsewhere. In practice, most GIs relate to agricultural products, and many originate from Europe, such as the terms Champagne, Mozzarella, and Parmesan. Due to the fundamental relationship between place and product, there have been major arguments that producers outside a specified region are not permitted to use the place name on product labels, no matter how similar their product is to the GI-protected product. A few years ago, a series of European GIs for cheese products were opposed in Vietnam by U.S. producers who considered the terms common names that should not be monopolized under the GI protection scheme. In addition, the overlapping rights between trademarks and GIs and their historically tempestuous relationship add more trauma to lawmakers and IP practitioners. Amid this controversy, Vietnam has joined many international agreements with regard to IP and GI rights, including the TRIPS Agreement, the CPTPP, and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA). Although Vietnam’s IP Law has been amended to reflect these agreements, Vietnamese lawmakers still bear a heavy responsibility in drafting and issuing legislation to further guide the implementation of the amended law, to not only correctly reflect Vietnam’s international commitments, but also to balance the rights of many sides with conflicting interests regarding GIs and trademarks. This legislation includes an upcoming circular regarding industrial property rights (the “draft Circular”). Information Transparency The CPTPP requires GI applications or petitions to be published for opposition, and provides procedures for opposing such GIs. In addition, it requires Vietnam to
Read More
September 4, 2023
With Vietnam’s entertainment industry booming, the demand for music to be used in films and video games has sharply increased. Sometimes a song featured in a movie’s soundtrack can become as popular as the movie itself. In order to use a song in a film, the producer of the film will typically need to enter into an agreement with the owner of a copyrighted work to have permission to use that work – with an agreed amount of royalty. Otherwise, their use could be considered a copyright infringement. However, what happens if the producer enters into an agreement with a song’s purported copyright owner, only to later find that such person does not really own the song entirely? A recent high-profile case in Vietnam brought this issue to light. The Dispute and Court Rulings The film “Face Off 4 – The Walking Guests,” financed and produced by Ly Hai Promotion Co., Ltd (“Ly Hai”) premiered in April 2019, and soon became a big success. In this film, Ly Hai used a song called “Ganh Me” on the basis of a March 2019 contract to use the song signed with the musician Quach Beem, who was recognized as the song owner in a copyright certificate issued on 24 April 2019 by the Copyright Office of Vietnam (COV). The dispute arose in November 2019 when an individual named Truong Minh Nhat discovered that the lyrics of “Ganh Me” were almost identical to a poem he had written and posted on his Facebook page in June 2014, well before the COV had issued the copyright certificate to Quach Beem. Mr. Nhat initiated a lawsuit against two defendants, Quach Beem and Ly Hai, for copyright infringement. In his petition, Mr. Nhat requested the court to, among other things, recognize him as the author
Read More