RIZALDI MALKAN HUSNI

A-3 /031411131144

Analysis of 10 Similar Mark

According to Law Number 15 Year 2001 about Marks, article 1 clearly states that:
1. Mark shall mean a sign in the form of a picture, name, word, letters, figures,
composition of colors, or a combination of said elements, having distinguishing
features and used in the activities of trade in goods or services.
2. Trade Mark shall mean a Mark that is used on goods traded by a person or by several
persons jointly or a legal entity to distinguish the goods from other goods of the
same kind.
The function of the brand can be said to be the declarant and comparative product
produced by a company or a person with a product from another company or others. Also,
can be said that the function of the brand is the product quality assurance, especially in terms
of quality. Therefore, to ownership and the brand is recognized by consumers, it takes a
trademark that is not easy being misused by parties who are not responsible, such as duplicate
such marks by changing some of the words of the brand but kind of the same product or vice
versa.
Brand counterfeiting is a form of theft of intellectual property rights is often the case
related to the mark. So, it is not strange, if foreign investors are reluctant to invest in
Indonesia. This is because there is no strict legal action against such violations. The practice
of plagiarism against famous brands are also creating considerable losses to various parties,
both brand owners and consumers. Brand owner will be harmed through the imagery of the
product quality. While consumers will be deceived by buying goods that are far from the
quality is directly owned by the owner of the actual brand.
And in article 5 states that A Mark shall not be registered if it contains one of the
following elements:
a. Contradicting with the prevailing rules and regulation, morality of religion, or
public order;
b. Having no distinguishing features;
c. Having become public property; or
d. Constituting information or related to the goods or services for which registration is
requested.

Article 6
(1) An Application for registration of a Mark shall be refused by the Directorate General if
the relevant Mark:
a. has a similarity in its essential part or in its entirety with a Mark owned by another party
which has previously been registered for the same kind of goods and/or services.
b. has a similarity in its essential part or in its entirety with a well-known Mark owned by
another party for the same kind of goods and/or services.

RIZALDI MALKAN HUSNI

A-3 /031411131144

c. has a similarity in its essential part or in its entirety with a known geographical
indication.
Mark case in Indonesia frequently occur in the industrial field. These cases are even a
controversy and there were still circulating in the market today. Some of them will be
presented in following columns below:
Registered Mark

Similar Mark

Analysis
Tupperware Brands has been
registered in Indonesia under no.
registration 263 213, 300 665,
300 644, 300 666, 300 658, 339
994, 339 399 for other types of
goods as mentioned above, while
the brand new Tulipware apply
for registration of the mark at the
Directorate
General
of
Intellectual property. Household
products manufactured by DART
INDUSTRIES INC has been
marketed in more than 70
countries,
using
trademark
TUPPERWARE. TUPPERWARE
also been marketed widely in
Indonesia through the National
Distributor and receiver licenses,
namely PT. IMAWI BENJAYA.
The violence is:
a. There is a similarity in
principle between the brand
Tulipware with TUPPERWARE
to similar products
b. Brand placement at the bottom
of the container and the same
form of writing that is more
dominant, thus accentuating the
similarities than differences. The
existence of similar products that
use brand TUPPERWARE and
Tulipware confuse consumers as
to the origin of goods.
c. Tulipware brand used on
different goods with brand
etiquette filed his petition on the
Directorate
General
of
Intellectual Property.

RIZALDI MALKAN HUSNI

A-3 /031411131144

Agar-agar Swallow Globe

Agar-agar
dunia

Cap

Therefore, based on Law No. 15

of 2001 Article 6 (a) Tullipware
Brand must be rejected
Second look noodle products are
similar in terms of the words used
on product packaging, which both
use the word "Sedap". Only in the
original product is Mie Sedap of
Wings Food, while Supermi
Sedaaap just following. Similarity
is only in terms of the word
"Sedap", in product Supermi
words "Sedap" wearing his 3
letter "A" (Sedaaap), while in Mie
Sedaap use 2 letter "A" (Sedaap).
We can conclude these two
products have a level of similarity
is only about 10-20% only.
However ,Mie Sedaap appeared
first as a new product, then
supermi sedaaap come after.
Therefore, based on Law No. 15
of 2001 Article 6 (a) Mie Sedaaap
Supermi Brand must be rejected
Brand
"Polystation"
Having
similarities in principle with the
Playstation brand. Polystation
brands have similarities with the
Playstation brand in terms of
words, colors, and logo "PS"
located on the top right, and there
is also a rime when pronouncing
the name brands of the two
products. Then, the difference of
both products is only the letter
"O" in "Polystation" and the letter
"A" on "Playstation", it cannot be
regarded as a distinguishing
strong.
Therefore, based on Law No. 15
of 2001 Article 6 (a) PolyStation
Brand must be rejected
bola Both of these products have in
common in terms of color, words,
and images and color that
resembles the original product

RIZALDI MALKAN HUSNI

A-3 /031411131144

(Swallow Globe Brand). Cap

Bola Dunia and Swallow Globe
brand is glance looks similar, the
difference is the brand of
"Swallow
Globe"
are
the
hallmark bears the stamp
indicating the color of the agar
are on the upper right side, the
words "Red color", while the
"Cap Swallow Globe "does not
have it. Agar-agar cap bola dunia
deemed not to have enough
distinguishing, therefore, there is
a similarity in principle between
Agar-agar Swallow Globe
with Agar-agar Cap bola dunia.
Therefore, based on Law No. 15
of 2001 Article 6 (a) Agar-agar
Cap bola dunia Brand must be
rejected
Both of these products have
similarities in terms of the brand
used, namely "SONY" and
"SQMY".
Products
were
originally "SONY" from Japan,
while its counterfeit products are
made in China under the brand
name "SQMY". In the second
stick, the original "SONY" has a
light grayish color with a bright
white base color of gray, whereas
in "SQMY" has a darker grayish
color with a white base color
sticks
Therefore, based on Law No. 15
of 2001 Article 6 (a) SQMY
Brand must be rejected
Both of these products have a
difference in writing within a
circle that becomes Trademark of
the original product which is
"Converse All Star", while the
counterfeit product is "star ball
classic" made in China. The
original Converse product is a
subsidiary of the company "Nike"

RIZALDI MALKAN HUSNI

A-3 /031411131144

made in America. "Converse"

have an average price of 400
thousand and above, while the
fake is only worth 180 thousand
down.
Therefore, based on Law No. 15
of 2001 Article 6 (a) Ball Star
Classic Brand must be rejected
According to my observations,
these counterfeit products violate
the
trademark
rights
of
"Kingston" for wearing the
"Kingston" brand so it is very
difficult to distinguish. That
distinguishes only its products,
the counterfeit product labeled
only Kingston arise, whereas the
original products labeled 360Gb
Data Traveler air-stickers. Then
there is an inscription of 360 GB
on
the
original
product
packaging, while the counterfeit
product does not exist.
Therefore, based on Law No. 15
of 2001 Article 6 (a) Imitate
Kingston Brand must be rejected
Oriorio products have in common
with oreo products in terms of
logo, color composition, words,
and similarity of pronunciation.
The second difference lies in the
product image size smaller biscuit
and open at the bottom right
corner of the packaging compared
to that of the packaging oreo.
Brands
Oriorio
considered
sufficient distinguishing features.
Therefore, based on Law No. 15
of 2001 Article 6 (a) Oriorio
Brand must be rejected
Adidos brands have similarities in
principle with the adidas brand.
Adidos products have similarities
in terms of logo and words with
adidas products. So, there is not
enough distinguishing the product

RIZALDI MALKAN HUSNI

A-3 /031411131144

Abidas with Adidas products

Therefore, based on Law No. 15
of 2001 Article 6 (a) Adidos
Brand must be rejected
Puma brands have similarities in
principle with the Numa brand.
Numa products have similarities
in terms of logo and words with
Puma products. So, there is not
enough distinguishing the product
Numa with Puma products.
Therefore, based on Law No. 15
of 2001 Article 6 (a) Numa Brand
must be rejected

Based on the similarity of cases of the brand on the product can be concluded that the
protection of the brand is still very weak. Law No. 15 of 2001 recognize the brand protection
system that is constitutive system, means the protection of rights to the brand awarded based
solely on their enrollment. This system is also known as the first to file system, which means
that the protection given to anyone who signed up first. Petitioner thereafter applying the
same or similar brand will not be protected by law.
Law No. 15 of 2001 has been set such that the provisions of the brand, but in practice
often arise some problems in brand inspection. The most common problem is related to the
brand equation. Article 6, paragraph (1) letter a mention that the trademark application should
be rejected by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights (DG IPR) where the
brand has a similarity in principle or in its entirety with a brand other parties that have been
registered first for the goods and or services.