When David Defeats Goliath: A Victory for Indonesian MSMEs in a Trademark Cancellation Dispute at the Jakarta Central Commercial Court
Lex Aeterna Law Firm | Legal Commentary
4 min read
Introduction
Amid the tide of globalization that frequently places Indonesian Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in a vulnerable position when confronting multinational corporations, a 2025 decision by the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court deserves to be recorded as a significant milestone. In a trademark cancellation lawsuit filed by a South Asian foreign company against an Indonesian MSME, the Panel of Judges rendered a ruling that affirms one fundamental principle:
justice is not determined by the size of the parties in dispute, but by adherence to procedural law and the territorial principle of trademark protection in Indonesia.
Lex Aeterna Law Firm had the privilege of representing the Defendant — an MSME entrepreneur who had lawfully registered his trademark in Indonesia since 2008 — in defending against a lawsuit brought by a foreign corporation that claimed ownership of the same trademark in its home country since 1967.
The Core of the Dispute
The object of dispute in this case was the “EVEREST” trademark for goods in Class 30 (everyday consumer products such as spices, seasonings, and processed food ingredients). The mark had been registered in the name of the Defendant at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property of the Republic of Indonesia since 2008, and its protection period had been renewed in 2017 until 2028.
The Plaintiff — a foreign limited liability company engaged in the production of spices — filed a cancellation lawsuit on the grounds that its “EVEREST” trademark had been registered in its home country since 1967 and in various international jurisdictions. The Plaintiff’s main arguments rested on three classical contentions: similarity in essential elements, the Defendant’s bad faith, and the international fame of the Plaintiff’s mark.
However, behind these substantive arguments lay a fundamental weakness in the construction of the lawsuit that ultimately became the central point of the Panel’s consideration.
An Obscure Petitum: How “and Its Variants” Unraveled the Entire Lawsuit
In its petitum number 2, the Plaintiff requested the Court to declare it as the “owner of the EVEREST Trademark and its variants.” The phrase “and its variants” became the gateway for the defense strategy we developed.
In our answer and rejoinder, we argued that this phrase contradicted the principle of legal certainty (rechtszekerheid) on the following grounds:
There was no limitative specification regarding which variants of the mark were intended.
There were at least four different label designs with varying registration statuses (registered, rejected, in process) under the names of the Plaintiff and its predecessors.
There were also seven other parties in Indonesia who held registrations for marks containing the same word element across different classes of goods, none of whom were joined as parties to the proceedings.
By employing the open-ended phrase “and its variants,” the Plaintiff effectively sought a declaration of ownership with an unlimited scope (numerus apertus) — something fundamentally at odds with the principle of neminem laedere and capable of prejudicing third parties not involved in the case.
The Panel’s Reasoning: The Posita-Petitum Coherence Doctrine
In its considerations, the Panel of Judges firmly stated:
“Whereas in the posita of its lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not specify which variant or variants were intended, such that the Panel of Judges cannot examine, assess, or rule upon the variants intended to be declared as the Plaintiff’s trademark. Were such variants to be forcibly examined and adjudicated, this would risk creating error in determining the Plaintiff’s trademark rights…”
The Panel further relied on the Posita-Petitum Coherence Doctrine as articulated by M. Yahya Harahap, S.H. in Civil Procedural Law (2017:520), which holds that there must be clear coherence between the posita (the factual and legal basis of the lawsuit) and the petitum (the prayer for relief), where the petitum constitutes a concrete conclusion grounded in a clearly elaborated posita.
It was this incoherence that led the Panel to conclude that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was obscure (obscuur libel) and failed to meet the formal requirements of a proper claim, and therefore had to be declared inadmissible (niet ontvankelijke verklaard).
Reflection: Justice That Honors the Indonesian Context
What makes this ruling remarkable is not merely the procedural-technical victory. There is a deeper value at stake: the affirmation that Indonesian trademark law stands on its own foundation.
Indonesia adheres to a constitutive (first-to-file) system that is territorial in nature. This means that trademark protection in Indonesia is granted to the party that first lawfully registers its mark within Indonesian jurisdiction — not on the basis of ownership claims in other countries, even where the applicant’s mark has been registered abroad for decades.
This approach differs philosophically from the systems of certain jurisdictions that more readily accommodate the expansive claims of global corporations. The Indonesian system maintains a balance: it does not close the door to foreign business actors who follow proper registration procedures, but neither does it allow local MSMEs — who have built their businesses through years of hard work — to lose their rights merely because a larger party later arrives bearing historical claims from another jurisdiction.
In this case, the Defendant is an Indonesian MSME whose trademark was registered through lawful procedures, passed substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property, and has been actively used in commerce for more than a decade. Cancelling a right that arose constitutively under Indonesian law solely on the basis of extraterritorial claims would set a precedent detrimental to thousands of other MSMEs across Indonesia
Closing Remarks
This decision reminds us that in intellectual property disputes, procedural detail is not mere formality — it is the first bastion of substantive justice. A lawsuit that is not coherently constructed, however grand its substantive arguments may be, cannot be forced into examination on the merits.
For Indonesian MSMEs facing similar disputes, the message of this ruling is clear: the rights you have lawfully acquired under Indonesian law are rights that are protected. David need not always lose to Goliath — so long as the stones in his hand are diligence, strategy, and faith in justice.
Lex Aeterna Law Firm is grateful to have been part of this process of upholding justice, and remains committed to standing alongside Indonesian business actors — large and small alike — in defending their legal rights.