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​ 

August 29, 2023
Cambodia recently tightened its trademark procedures by restricting the filing of separate single-class applications for a mark covering multiple classes, and tightening the deadline for filing affidavits of use or non-use. The latter requirement is especially consequential for existing registered trademark owners, as disregarding it could result in removal of the registered mark from Cambodia’s trademark registry. Multiple-Class Applications Cambodia’s Ministry of Commerce announced on August 1, 2023, that the Department of Intellectual Property Rights will now only accept a single application for a trademark covering more than one international class. This means that multiple-class applications are mandatory for applications covering more than one class. Previously, trademark applicants were allowed to file separate single-class applications for the same mark covering multiple classes. The new rule, which took effect immediately, aims to reduce unnecessary paperwork and facilitate the trademark registration process. Period for Filing Affidavits of Use or Non-Use On August 11, 2023, the Ministry of Commerce issued a notification stating that trademark registrants who miss the deadline for filing an affidavit of use or non-use will no longer be allowed to file an affidavit after the deadline or at the time of filing the trademark renewal, as had previously been allowed. This is in line with the Sub-Decree Concerning the Filing of an Affidavit of Use or Non-Use, which requires registered trademark owners to file an affidavit of use or non-use of the trademark within one year following the fifth anniversary of the mark’s registration or renewal. Importantly, the notification announces that registered trademarks will be removed from the registry if the trademark owner fails to file an affidavit of the mark’s use or non-use within the required time period. This announcement applies to both domestic registrations and international registrations made under the Madrid Protocol. Although the notification does
Read More
August 25, 2023
On August 23, 2023, the Vietnamese government issued Decree No. 65/2023/ND-CP detailing and guiding the implementation of some articles of the 2022 Intellectual Property Law with respect to the establishment and protection of industrial property rights (“Decree 65”). Decree 65 took immediate effect upon issuance, replacing Decree No. 103/2006/ND-CP and a part of Decree No. 105/2006/ND-CP, and provides long-awaited, necessary guidance for implementation of the IP Law, which took effect on January 1, 2023. Some of the most critical provisions of Decree 65 include the following:   Establishment of Industrial Property Rights Procedures for Establishment: The procedures for the establishment of industrial property rights are set out in Decree 65, rather than in a lower-level circular. These include the procedures related to PCT applications for inventions and Madrid applications for trademarks, and the (newly added) procedures related to Hague applications for industrial designs. Decree 65 also provides the details of the procedure for security control of inventions, including an annex listing the technical fields deemed to affect national security. The decree confirms that registration certificates can be issued in electronic form and in paper form. However, hard copy registration will only be issued under explicit request in the application. It also provides various new forms, including application forms for patents, designs, integrated circuits, and geographical indications, among others. Right Holder, Content, and Limitation of Rights: Further details are provided on the rights and responsibilities of organizations and individuals who use geographical indications. Decree 65 also details the procedure for compensation of patent owners due to the delay in granting marketing authorization of pharmaceutical products, stipulated in Article 131a of the IP Law. Secret Inventions: Decree 65 provides details for identifying and processing patent applications for secret inventions as well as procedures for decodifying inventions filed as secret inventions. Amendment:
Read More
August 23, 2023
Introduction The idea of the metaverse rose to prominence in the public discourse in 2021, most notably when Facebook renamed itself Meta and announced a new focus on launching a virtual, immersive world. The initial excitement around the metaverse has since faded, with worsening economic conditions having a particularly acute effect on companies in the technology sector. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in March 2023 that artificial intelligence (AI) was the company’s “single largest investment,” many took this as a sign of the company shifting focus away from the metaverse. However, there remains significant interest in the metaverse from both businesses and consumers. Zuckerberg himself reaffirmed Meta’s focus on the metaverse, highlighting how developments in AI will improve virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology. Meanwhile, Roblox, a metaverse gaming platform, announced that in Q1 2023, its number of daily active users had increased to 66 million. Most recently, the announcement by Apple of its new ‘Vision Pro’ AR headset is reported to have renewed interest in the metaverse among developers. A particular area of interest in the developing metaverse is digital fashion and retail. In its Metaverse Fashion Trends Report 2022, Roblox found that nearly three in four users aged 14 to 24 spend money on digital fashion items. Roblox itself has partnered with fashion brands Burberry, Gucci, Tommy Hilfiger, and others, to offer experiences and items for use on the platform. In March 2023, Decentraland, a metaverse platform with a decentralized governance structure, hosted the Metaverse Fashion Week, featuring brands such as Adidas, Coach, and DKNY. As businesses continue to invest and look for opportunities to expand into the metaverse, whether through traditional e-commerce or more innovative digital asset offerings, it is important that they consider the ways in which new and existing laws apply
Read More
August 21, 2023
Counterfeiting activities have been a global concern for many decades, and the problem has not yet gone away despite persistent efforts to suppress it. Significant strides have been made, but the most notable change is in the way that counterfeiters commit these infringing activities, which increasingly involve online technologies and channels. In Southeast Asia, the counterfeit industry is worth hundreds of billions of US dollars and is expected to grow even further. In tracking the size of the global trade in counterfeit goods, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the EUIPO have noted that many countries in Southeast Asia are important producers of—and have traded heavily in—counterfeit goods. These countries have also traded heavily in counterfeit goods, and advanced technology has enabled these countries to produce more sophisticated goods and sell them in more advanced ways. Consumer shift to online channels One reason for the proliferation of these activities is the demand for online shopping platforms, which increased markedly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consumer behavior in Southeast Asia has shifted in the past decade due to the growth of online sales channels, such as e-commerce and social media platforms. The pandemic hastened the switch to such channels and many consumers have kept using them ever since. As merchants adapted to this trend, sellers of counterfeit goods also benefited greatly. Instead of having to be physically present in the marketplace, where they risked getting caught by the authorities, they can hide behind websites and sell counterfeit products from a stock of goods anywhere in the world. Counterfeit goods sellers have developed new ways to avoid detection and have improved their strategy for making their online profiles look more trustworthy and descriptions of their goods more convincing. This move to online channels requires consumers to be more knowledgeable and
Read More