Indonesia’s New Criminal Code and Intellectual Property

January 17, 2023

Indonesia’s New Criminal Code and Intellectual Property

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

Jennifer Tangka

IP Consultant

Indonesia

+6221 2971 8088

Email

Wongrat Ratanaprayul

Partner and Director, Indonesia

Thailand, Indonesia,

+6221 2971 8099

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

December 20, 2024

IP Holding Companies: Singapore vs. Hong Kong

With intellectual property playing an ever-increasing role in economic development, the need to harness, promote, and protect ASEAN innovation remains urgent as integration progresses. Among its objectives, the ASEAN Economic Community aims to transform the region into a hub of innovation and competitiveness and ensure that the region remains an active participant in the international IP community. With ASEAN member states increasing IP generation and further committing to global IP regimes, the region is increasingly looking toward sophisticated IP ownership and holding structures. IP Holding Companies ASEAN-based companies continue to centralize ownership of their IP assets in offshore holding and licensing vehicles—an approach multinational companies headquartered elsewhere have been using for a number of years. IP-intensive companies look to locate their IP portfolios in low-tax jurisdictions with strong IP registration and protection laws. The company then licenses the IP to operating companies in the group or to third-party licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors, and other partners in return for royalties or license fees. These special-purpose vehicles are typically referred to as IP holding companies. IP holding companies are popular because they can help corporations minimize tax, gain tax benefits or concessions, protect IP from bankruptcy or other claims against the parent company, and focus management attention on the IP portfolio as an income generator. Tax and IP Holding Companies Tax is the primary reason most companies park their IP in separate IP holding vehicles. Sometimes, companies choose to establish their IP holding company in a no-tax, low-tax, or preferred-tax jurisdiction close to their home country. The selected jurisdiction should also be a country with a large and well-established tax treaty network. Double taxation treaties are key considerations in jurisdiction shopping. If the IP assets need to be pledged as security for future borrowings or if they are to be included

December 20, 2024

Thailand Introduces Fast-Track Option for Patent Examination of Green Inventions

Closing out the year, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has gifted green innovators with a chance to take a faster route for examining their patent and petty patent applications under the “Target Patent Fast-Track” program. This route prioritizes environmentally sustainable inventions, and significantly accelerates the preliminary and substantive examinations of selected applications at no additional official fee. The program was publicly announced on December 2, 2024, in the DIP Notification on the Expansion of Technological Fields under the Target Patent Fast-Track Program, which took effect on December 15, 2024. The expedited process is open to both Thai and foreign applicants, provided the requirements in the notification are met. Under the fast-track program, a first office action for qualifying applications can be expected within 6 months during the preliminary examination stage. These applications will also be issued a first office action within just 12 months in the substantive examination period after publication. The DIP begins accepting formal requests for selection to participate in the program from January 1, 2025, onward. Each applicant can submit only one application per fast-track patent program per month, as selected applications cannot belong to the same applicant. No more than 10 applications per month will be chosen to participate in the fast-track route, with the results being announced on the 5th of every following month. To be eligible for selection, applications must comply with all the fast-track requirements specified in the recent DIP notification, particularly: The patent or petty patent application must have been filed with the DIP for at least three months, or a substantive examination request has already been filed in the case of patent applications. Each application must contain no more than 10 claims throughout its participation in the program. The application must be electronically filed in Thailand first or through

December 18, 2024

The EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement

The EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement is drawing a lot of interest as the fourth round recently concluded in Bangkok. Despite negotiations starting in 2013, there was a ten-year pause before we saw the first round of negotiations end in September 2023. The initial plan was for four rounds of negotiations, with the free trade agreement (FTA) finalized in 2025. However, following the fourth round it is clear that the negotiations are still ongoing. Now, the question is: how much closer are the EU and Thailand to concluding their FTA? The EU initially submitted 13 chapter proposals for the FTA, followed by a further 12, and these became the springboard for the negotiations. Given the complexity of agreeing on an accord of this size, there will probably be additional proposals submitted in 2025. These chapters have seen sector-specific negotiation groups formed, and although it has been difficult to truly gauge the status, steady progress has been made in each. Arguably one of the biggest points of discussion pertains to the customs process for imports and exports. Both sides aim to align their practices in relation to rules of origin and custom rates, with preferential tariff treatments offered to goods originating from Thailand and the EU, as well as talks of eliminating or reducing relevant taxes. The desire for a faster customs clearance can be seen in EU proposals for clearance of goods on arrival. Although there has been progress in agreeing to a more simplified customs process, more work needs to be done before we hear news of the agreed-upon fees and charges, or confirmation of what goods would be allowed temporary admission. When we consider customs clearance, it is important to also examine what this FTA could mean for rightsholders. One piece of good news is that it appears

December 9, 2024

Protection of New Plant Varieties in Cambodia

Cambodia’s Law on Seed Management and Plant Breeder’s Rights was enacted in 2008, but it was not until recently that new plant varieties could successfully be registered for protection in the country. Although the law has been in place for some time, recent developments confirmed the application process and a schedule of charges for the registration of new plant varieties. With these developments, breeders have been able to register their new plant varieties in Cambodia since March 1, 2024. Applicants for new plant variety protection must be Cambodian nationals, foreign nationals domiciled in Cambodia, or permanent residents of either a country that is a contracting party to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) Convention or a country with which Cambodia has signed a memorandum of understanding on plant variety protection. Applicants can also claim a priority date from the first application for the same plant variety filed in any contracting party of the UPOV Convention within 12 months of the earliest application’s filing date. To be eligible for protection, new plant varieties must satisfy the following criteria: Novelty: A variety is considered “new” if, at the date of filing the application for new plant variety protection, it has not been sold, marketed, or otherwise disposed of others—by or with the consent of the breeder—for more than: One year for any plant variety in Cambodia; Six years for trees and vines or four years for all other plant varieties in countries besides Cambodia. Distinctiveness: A variety must be clearly distinguishable from any other existing varieties. Uniformity: A variety must be sufficiently uniform in its relevant characteristics. Stability: A variety must remain unchanged in its essential characteristics at the end of each cycle of propagation and in each generation. The last three criteria are often

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

Industries

Practices

January 17, 2023