Trademark infringement<\/p>\n
It was reported in reader's letter of Your Letters, dated June
\n13, 1995, under the title Made where?, that the writer has found
\nthe writing \"Made in Indonesia\" on the Japanese product FUJI. We
\ncannot exactly determine whether it can be classified as a form
\nof unfair competition or commercial fraud. The factor to be taken
\ninto account is the existence of a joint venture agreement or
\nlicense agreement between an Indonesian partner and the Fuji
\ncorporation. In the absence of such an agreement it would seem
\nreasonable to suppose that it is a counterfeit.<\/p>\n
Motive for counterfeiting, conducted by local companies or
\nindividuals, is generally to increase the popularity of a famous
\ntrademark, especially internationally acknowledged trademarks.<\/p>\n
An infringement against famous trademarks is supported by the
\nsituation that most of our consumers tend to use foreign
\nproducts. Knowing this fact, traders or local companies, easily
\ndeceive consumers, affixing a mark to their goods which closely
\nresembles a well-known trademark, with the intention of evoking
\nthe impression among consumers that the products derive from the
\noriginal owner and\/or registered user.<\/p>\n
The prevailing legislation--New Trademark Law No 19 of 1992,
\nand the implementation of this regulation, makes no arrangement
\nwhich requires the proprietors of the mark to print their (or
\ntheir assignees') address, as well as the country of manufacture,
\non the permanently affixed labeling of each product.<\/p>\n
As I have already seen, registration of a mark is only based
\non the mark's word, or logo, without showing the other
\nparticulars on the package of the products. For example, on a
\npackage (usually on local products) is written \"Made in USA\" or
\n\"Made in Japan\", without printing on the packaging or container
\nthe producer's address, which means the public cannot identify
\nthe supplier of the products. They may jump to the wrong
\nconclusion--generalizing that Indonesian markets have been
\nlargely held by foreign products. However, we cannot possibly
\nallow this situation to continue.<\/p>\n
Ideally, it should not be necessary to infringe other
\ntrademarks because thousands of words may be used as trademarks.
\nCounterfeiting not only damages the rights and interests of the
\nmark's proprietor, or the public, but also the counterfeiter
\nitself. A familiarity with prevailing trademark law and knowing
\nthe risks to be incurred to a counterfeiter can be a valuable
\nfactor to prevent the infringements.<\/p>\n
In this respect, it is agreed and accepted that there should
\nbe a regular legal service to expand the insight of businessmen,
\nas well as traders, in regards to trademarks. The lack of such
\ninsight makes some of the local companies and\/or traders tempted
\nto obtain the advantages of famous trademarks, without making any
\neffort to make their trademarks well-known. So, infringements are
\ninevitable.<\/p>\n
The above infringements usually occur because of lack of
\nsupervision, market investigation and\/or awareness of law. In
\nthis case, the prevailing legislation i.e. New Trademark Law No
\n19\/1992 provides the preventive measures and protection as
\nstipulated in Article 80.<\/p>\n
Although the article stipulates the active role that may be
\nplayed by the related Department (Trademark Office), its
\nimplementing regulation makes no attempt to stipulate either the
\nprocedures of investigation or interim measures, pending a
\npermanent arrangement. Nor does it undertake to appoint such a
\ndepartment, to conduct investigations on persons or entities
\nsuspected of having committed criminal actions in the field of
\ntrademark counterfeiting.<\/p>\n
The involvement of the Trademark Office in conducting
\ninvestigations against trademark infringement rarely occurs. We
\ncannot expect more advancement in combating the national problem
\nof counterfeiting in the absence of implementing regulations.<\/p>\n
Finally, when asked to describe the problem of trademark
\ninfringement, we would tend to agree with the opinion that the
\nimplementation of our Trademark Law is still in the \"trial and
\nerror\" stage.<\/p>\n
REMIGIUS JUMALAN<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/trademark-infringement-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }