JAKARTA (MKRI) — Philosophically, the Trademark Law recognizes that a trademark is not only a business identity but also a tool that can improve the competitiveness of micro-, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). In addition, its norms were designed to provide legal protection for trademark owners and prevent practices that may harm consumers or business competitors.
The statement was made by Wagiman, an expert in philosophy, who was presented by the Petitioner of case No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023 at a material judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications (MIG Law/Trademark Law) on Wednesday, February 28, 2024.
At the fourth hearing for both cases No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023 and No. 162/PUU-XX/2023, Wagiman asserted that the provision containing phrase “three consecutive years” in the Trademark Law does not detail the criteria related to the conditions that must be met, such as the use of trademark, maintenance of rights, or execution of certain obligations. Thus, this vagueness leads to varying interpretations and raises challenges in the application of the norm. Philosophically, trademark contains the value of sharing, which is shown in two principles: explicit protection for MSMEs and protection for domestic industries.
The phrase “given to the Third Party to revoke a trademark” while the protection lasts for ten years, Wagiman said, could lead to negative effects due to legal uncertainty and harm to the trademark owner. This is because a third party can file a request to remove a trademark without any clear limitation.
“As such, the policy in the norm could potentially lead to unstable business climate and does not support long-term investments because trademark owners [would] hesitate to develop their trademarks if the risk of removal by a third party is deemed too high,” Wagiman said before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and the other constitutional justices. ***