Events

A trademark refusal does not necessarily mean the end of the road.

In Indonesia, trademark applications—whether filed directly with the Indonesian Trademark Office or through the Madrid Protocol—may receive a provisional refusal based on an earlier trademark or other grounds under Indonesian trademark law.

For trademark owners, the critical question is not simply why the mark was refused, but how the refusal should be legally addressed.

This is where experience matters.

Experience in Responding to Provisional Refusals

DLP IP Law Firm has repeatedly assisted domestic and international clients in responding to provisional refusals issued by the Indonesian Trademark Office.

Our approach is to carefully examine the cited mark, the applied-for mark, and the relevant goods or services, and then develop a focused legal argument addressing whether the marks are in fact identical or substantially similar and whether registration would create a likelihood of confusion.

Among the matters successfully handled by DLP are:

• ORIENTAL LEAF, which was successfully distinguished from ORIENT;​

• ​KOOM, which was successfully distinguished from NEO KOM;

• NATUREMATE, which was successfully distinguished from NATUREMED; and

• NEETA & LOGO, which was successfully distinguished from NITA.

​

These cases reflect an important principle in trademark examination: the similarity of trademarks must be assessed as a whole, based on their overall impression, and not by comparing individual elements of the marks separately. This principle is particularly important when determining whether two trademarks are substantially similar and whether their registration may cause confusion among consumers.

Experience in Trademark Appeals

DLP's experience also extends to cases where a provisional refusal ultimately became a final refusal.

Rather than treating a final refusal as the end of the matter, DLP has successfully represented clients in appeals before the Indonesian Trademark Appeal Commission (Komisi Banding Merek).

Among our successful appeals are:

• COSMECCA, successfully defended against the cited mark MECCA COSMETICA;​

• BENVI, successfully defended against the cited mark BON-V; and​

• ZAIGLING, successfully defended against the cited mark ZAIGLE.

​In each of these matters, the Indonesian Trademark Appeal Commission ultimately determined that the respective marks were not substantively similar and would not cause public confusion, allowing the applications for COSMECCA, BENVI, and ZAIGLING to proceed toward registration.

Refusal Is Not Always the Final Answer

Our experience has shown that a trademark refusal often requires more than a standard response.

It requires a clear understanding of Indonesian trademark law, examination practice, the cited mark, the relevant goods or services, and—where necessary—the appropriate strategy for appeal.

For this reason, DLP approaches a trademark refusal not merely as an objection to be answered, but as a legal issue to be strategically resolved.

Whether your trademark application is filed through the national registration system or under the Madrid Protocol, DLP IP Law Firm provides strategic Indonesian trademark counsel in responding to Provisional Refusals and pursuing appeals against Final Refusals.

When a trademark represents a valuable asset to your business, a refusal demands more than a response—it requires a considered legal strategy to protect your rights and commercial interests.