Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Happy Rayna Stephany, Mahinda Arkyasa
Gunze Limited, a Japanese company that produces sports apparel, stockings, socks, sweaters, and undergarments, filed a claim at Jakarta Commercial Court, on Monday (10/12), against the owner of Gunze Sport Maryoto for trademark infringement.
Gunze Limited, which owns a subsidiary named Gunze Sports Co. Ltd, accused Maryoto of not having good faith when he registered his trademark. Maryoto, according to Gunze Limited, intended to mislead customers and use the Original Gunze Sports’ fame for personal gains.
However, Maryoto denied that his trademark imitated Gunze Limited’s logo and font registered under registration No. IDM000109250 at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights (Directorate General).
Maryoto presented a certificate No. IDM000273135 issued by the Directorate General, dated 4 October 2010, as evidence in the court proceeding, Monday (17/12), to prove that his trademark has been registered.
According to Maryoto, he has followed the substantive procedure to acquire the certificate. He also explained that there were no claims filed when the Gunze Sport brand was announced in the Trademark Official Gazette on 23 June 2010.
“There is no resemblance between [Gunze Sport and the Original Gunze Sport] brands,” said Karhawi Yapar, Maryoto’s attorney, when he read the rejoinder, Monday (17/12).
Karhawi also rejected the applicant’s argument that Gunze Limited is a famous brand. He explained that pursuant to Article 6 (1) (b) of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademark (Trademark Law), a trademark’s fame must be proven by public acknowledgement in the respective business sector.
Although Gunze Limited has been acknowledged by Association Internationale de la Propriete Intelectuelle (AIPPI) since 1970, Karhawi stated that it does not necessarily mean that Gunze Limited is an internationally known brand, because each country has different market segmentation.
“[The fame claim] is a premature claim. The fact is, agents and wholesalers are unfamiliar with the brand [Gunze Limited],” he continued.
In conclusion, Karhawi argued that Gunze Limited brand registration intends to hinder domestic businesses development. As a result, the Japanese company has violated Article 4 of the Trademark Law, which states that a trademark cannot be registered if the registration was based on bad intentions.
Meanwhile, Gunze Limited’s attorney Donnie Siagian refused to comment regarding the rejoinder. He informed that a response to the rejoinder will be presented in a court proceeding on Thursday (20/12).
Happy Rayna Stephany, Mahinda Arkyasa
Gunze Limited, a Japanese company that produces sports apparel, stockings, socks, sweaters, and undergarments, filed a claim at Jakarta Commercial Court, on Monday (10/12), against the owner of Gunze Sport Maryoto for trademark infringement.
Gunze Limited, which owns a subsidiary named Gunze Sports Co. Ltd, accused Maryoto of not having good faith when he registered his trademark. Maryoto, according to Gunze Limited, intended to mislead customers and use the Original Gunze Sports’ fame for personal gains.
However, Maryoto denied that his trademark imitated Gunze Limited’s logo and font registered under registration No. IDM000109250 at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights (Directorate General).
Maryoto presented a certificate No. IDM000273135 issued by the Directorate General, dated 4 October 2010, as evidence in the court proceeding, Monday (17/12), to prove that his trademark has been registered.
According to Maryoto, he has followed the substantive procedure to acquire the certificate. He also explained that there were no claims filed when the Gunze Sport brand was announced in the Trademark Official Gazette on 23 June 2010.
“There is no resemblance between [Gunze Sport and the Original Gunze Sport] brands,” said Karhawi Yapar, Maryoto’s attorney, when he read the rejoinder, Monday (17/12).
Karhawi also rejected the applicant’s argument that Gunze Limited is a famous brand. He explained that pursuant to Article 6 (1) (b) of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademark (Trademark Law), a trademark’s fame must be proven by public acknowledgement in the respective business sector.
Although Gunze Limited has been acknowledged by Association Internationale de la Propriete Intelectuelle (AIPPI) since 1970, Karhawi stated that it does not necessarily mean that Gunze Limited is an internationally known brand, because each country has different market segmentation.
“[The fame claim] is a premature claim. The fact is, agents and wholesalers are unfamiliar with the brand [Gunze Limited],” he continued.
In conclusion, Karhawi argued that Gunze Limited brand registration intends to hinder domestic businesses development. As a result, the Japanese company has violated Article 4 of the Trademark Law, which states that a trademark cannot be registered if the registration was based on bad intentions.
Meanwhile, Gunze Limited’s attorney Donnie Siagian refused to comment regarding the rejoinder. He informed that a response to the rejoinder will be presented in a court proceeding on Thursday (20/12).