Bang! BYD Loses in Denza Trademark Dispute Case

Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia - The Supreme Court (MA) has decided on the trademark dispute case between PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi and the Chinese electric vehicle company, BYD Limited Company. According to Decision Number 1338 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2025, the MA rejected the cassation petition filed by BYD Company Limited.

“Rejecting the cassation petition from Cassation Petitioner II BYD Company Limited. Granting the cassation petition from Cassation Petitioner I PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi,” stated the MA Decision as quoted on Thursday (16/4/2026).

“Cancelling the decision of the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court Number 1/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2025/PN Niaga.Jkt.Pst., dated 28 April 2025,” it continued.

The MA then granted the Defendant’s exception and, on the merits of the case, declared the Plaintiff’s lawsuit (BYD Company Limited) inadmissible. In the considerations of the decision, it was stated that the Plaintiff had argued as the owner of the Denza trademark, which had been registered in various countries including Indonesia.

“Accepting all exceptions raised by the Cassation Petitioner (formerly the Defendant); Declaring the lawsuit a quo error in persona,” it stated.

Chronology of the Denza Trademark Dispute Case

As quoted from the case file, the Plaintiff (BYD Company Limited) had registered the Denza trademark for goods/services in Class 12, including motor vehicle bodies, brake linings for vehicles, vehicle bodies, motor buses, motor vehicles, cars, driverless cars (autonomous cars), self-driving cars, motors, electric motors for land vehicles, motor coaches, car chassis, trucks, and forklift trucks, and for Class 37, services including vehicle repair, vehicle lubrication, vehicle cleaning, vehicle maintenance, vehicle polishing, vehicle washing, vehicle battery charging, electric vehicle charging, anti-rust treatment for vehicles, and maintenance and repair of motor vehicles.

The Defendant (PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi) had registered the Denza El trademark owned by the Defendant (PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi), which according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s trademark is essentially similar to the Plaintiff’s Denza trademark (BYD Limited Company). According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant registered the Denza El trademark in bad faith and had plagiarised the Plaintiff’s trademark.

The Denza trademark was subsequently transferred to PT Raden Reza Adi based on a trademark rights transfer agreement before a Notary, as stated in Deed Number 1, dated 10 September 2024, and the Denza trademark was officially submitted for registration of the trademark rights transfer at the co-Defendant’s office on 11 September 2024.

“That evidence letter marked T-1 in the form of Confirmation Deed of Trademark Rights Transfer Agreement Number 01, dated 10 September 2024, based on the evidence letter as mentioned above, it is obtained that on 10 September 2024, Mr. Roysevelt as Director of PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi as the first party, has transferred ownership of the Denza trademark to another party, in this case Mr. Adi Rejono as Director of PT Raden Reza Adi or abbreviated as PT Denza as the Second Party,” quoted the case file.

“That based on Evidence T-2 and T-3, the Denza trademark has been transferred to PT Raden Reza Adi, thus the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is error in persona, because ownership of the Denza trademark has been transferred to PT Raden Reza Adi and is no longer owned by the Defendant, so the Defendant’s exception is accepted and the lawsuit is declared inadmissible (niet ontvankelijk verklaard),” it continued.

Therefore, based on the above considerations, the Supreme Court opined that there is sufficient reason to grant the cassation petition from Cassation Petitioner I PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi, and to cancel the Commercial Court Decision at the Central Jakarta District Court Number 1/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2025/PN Niaga.Jkt.Pst. dated 28 April 2025.

“Considering that based on the above considerations which grant the cassation petition from Cassation Petitioner I by declaring the Plaintiff’s lawsuit inadmissible, then the cassation petition from Cassation Petitioner II BYD COMPANY LIMITED must be rejected,” explained the case file.

“Considering that because the cassation petition from Cassation Petitioner I is granted and Cassation Respondent I is on the losing side, Cassation Respondent I is ordered to pay the court costs at the cassation level,” stated the case file.

This case was decided in a judges’ deliberation meeting on Wednesday, 24 December 2025, by I Gusti Agung Sumanatha, S.H., M.H., Supreme Judge appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as Panel Chair, Dr. H. Panji Widagdo, S.H., M.H., and Dr. Rahmi Mulyati, S.H., M.H., Supreme Judges as Members, and pronounced in an open court session on the same day by the Panel Chair along with the Member Judges and Dr. Wawan Edi Prastiyo, S.H., M.H., Substitute Clerk, without the presence of the parties.