Bad faith considered in deletion hearing

01 May 2010

There are positive signs that the Supreme Court intends to treat trade mark pirates severely to protect Indonesia's reputation.

In Agustinus Tong vs Nashua Corporation, a former employee turned trade mark pirate sought to delete Nashua's trade mark for non-use. Tong was employed by Nashua's Indonesian distributor before setting up in competition and registering his own Nashua trade mark. He then challenged Nashua's registration on the grounds that Nashua was not using the trade mark in Indonesia.

Tong produced letters from the Ministry of Trade and the Customs Department suggesting that Nashua's mark was not in use. The Commercial Court accepted Tong's claims and ordered the deletion of the trade mark. Nashua appealed to the Supreme Court.

The panel of judges led by professor Mieke Komar was clearly influenced by the apparent bad faith on Tong's part as well as arguments put forward by Nashua's counsel that Nashua is based in the United States, which is Indonesia's largest trading partner.

This case is interesting because it is one of the few cases where bad faith has been considered in deletion proceedings. The decision issued by the Supreme Court also demonstrates that the courts do not necessarily have a bias towards local parties. There is an increasing tendency for Indonesian judges to look at parties critically, particularly when a party does not have clean hands. Having the moral high ground is a distinct advantage when in front of a panel of judges.

Brett McGuire

Rouse
Suite 701, Wisma Pondok Indah 2
Jl Sultan Iskandar Muda Kav V-TA
Pondok Indah, Jakarta 12310
Indonesia
Tel: +62 21 769 7333
Fax: +62 21 769 7505
bmcguire@iprights.com
www.iprights.com


Bookmarks



INTA Daily News 2012

Read this year's INTA Daily News - published daily by Managing IP direct from the 134th INTA Annual Meeting in Washington DC

null null null
null null

May 2012

Do you want to be famous?

Famous, well-known, notorious, reputed: everyone wants enhanced protection for their trade marks. But should they, and what does it mean if it is? Emma Barraclough explains



Most read articles

Poll

Will the new post grant and inter partes review proceedings result in more litigators practising pro hac vice before the USPTO?







Supplements