Rampant cases of trademark infringement that occurred in Indonesia is one proof that the Indonesian people are now slowly beginning to realize the importance of registering the trademark as the basis for the legal protection of one of the branches of intellectual property rights. Therefore, since the trademark is important and is maintained by its owners, it is often happen a case of seizure of trademark in the domain of civil or criminal law.

Currently the trademark dispute that call attention is the case of seizure of trademarked watches "Piaget" between the company Richemont International SA, located at Route des Biches 10, Geneva, Switzerland against Hartafadjaja Mulia a local businessman, that businessmen from Indonesia is the owner of the trademark "Piaget Polo". The lawsuit Richemont International SA on Hartafadjaja Mulia posted to the Central Jakarta Commercial Court in April 2012, Richemont considers the registration of Piaget Polo is hijacking Piaget trademark fame. Therefore, Hartafadjaja is considered to have bad faith with Piaget Polo registration.

Lawsuit filed by Richemont International SA to the Central Jakarta Commercial Court countered by Central Jakarta District Court on August 16, 2012 and the judge did not accept (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). The lawsuit is considered to have passed 5-year filing deadline for cancellation of the trademark as the provisions of Article 69 paragraph (1) of Law No. 15/2001 on the trademark. The lawsuit can be done indefinitely if the plaintiff's trademark is well-known trademark.

In November 2012, Suryomurcito & Co, which is the legal representative of Richemont International SA submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court after the lawsuit at the Commercial Court was not granted, by the Supreme Court, the lawsuit was received in February 2013 for the reason that the Expiration trademark have no time limit if its concerned contrary to morality, religion, decency and public order. Bad faith includes the definition contrary to morality or public order, that the reason for the appeal panel, chaired by I Made Tara with members Soltoni Mohdally and Djafni Djamal.

Legal Analytical

Richemont International SA is the owner of the luxury watch trademark "Piaget" which has been registered in several countries, while Hartafadjaja is the owner of the trademark "Piaget Polo". One of Richemont International SA subsidiary Piaget SA is a luxury watchmaking and jewelry that have been known in the world. According to a study ranking the Luxury Institute jewelery, Piaget jewelery trademark enter as the 6th most prestigious in the world.

Before entering into the problem, we need to know is the trademark is a sign that an image, name, word, letters, figures, composition of colors, or a combination of these elements, that having distinguishing features and used in trading activities goods or services. Rules regarding trademarks in Indonesia is regulated in Act Number 15 Year 2001 on trademarks.

Piaget Polo trademark owned by Hartafadjaja is considered to hijacking the fame of the trademark owned by Richemont International SA Piaget, "Piaget Polo" is registered for the class 35 goods with register number IDM000230699, from December 22, 2009 for this type of service "retail sales, wholesale or bulk and is also listed at the register number 563 426 since February 19, 2004 for the type of goods apparel (garment) is underwear men/women, children's clothing, sportswear, and kind of that.

Piaget trademark owned by Richemont International SA register Piaget to protect the type of goods in classes 21, 34, 09, 16, 18, 03, and 14 for goods such as precious metals and mixtures thereof, goods made ??of metal, plated or of the material. Also the body jewelry bracelets, necklaces, brooches, cufflinks, earrings, rings, precious stones, gems, watches, chain watches, clocks and their parts. In addition, the trademark "Piaget" is also used for soap products, perfume, essence oil, beauty ingredients (not the drug), cosmetics, lotions for the hair (hair tonic), hair oils, as well as maintaining material gear.

Richemont International SA filed a lawsuit in represented by legal counsel that Ardhiyasa of office Suryomurcito & Co., at his complaint to the Central Jakarta commercial court, the judge of the commercial court rejected the lawsuit countered to Central Jakarta District Court at August 16, 2012 because the judge did not accept the reason (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). The lawsuit is considered to have passed 5-year filing deadline for cancellation of the trademark as the provisions of Article 69 paragraph (1) of Law No. 15/2001 on the trademark. However, the claim can be done indefinitely if the plaintiff's trademark is well-known trademark and the trademark if contrary to religious morality, decency or public order.

Article 69 of the Trademark's Act itself reads :

1. The lawsuit mark registration can only be filed within five (5) years from the date of registration of the mark.
2. Lawsuit shall be filed indefinitely if the trademark in question contrary to religious morality, decency, or public order.

   Rules about the trademark in the Trademark Law that a trademark should not have equality in principle and as a whole provided for in Article 6, which reads:

   The application shall be rejected by the Directorate-General if the Trademark:

   1. Similarity in its Essential Part or entirely owned by another party trademarks that have been registered in advance for goods and/or services of that kind;
   2. Similarity in its Essential Part or entirely with well-known trademarks owned by other parties for goods and/or for that kind.
   3. Similarity in its Essential Part or entirely with well-known trademarks owned by other parties for goods and/or for that kind.
3. The provisions referred to in paragraph (1) letter b can also be applied to goods and / or services which are not similar that they meet certain requirements will be further defined by government regulation.
4. The application must also be rejected by the Directorate-General if the Trademark:
1. Is or resembles a famous person's name, photograph, or the name of the legal entity owned by another person, except upon the written consent of the beneficiaries;
2. An imitation or resembles the name or acronym name, flag, emblem or symbol or emblem of a state or national and international institutions, except upon written approval of the competent authority;
3. An imitation or resembles a mark or seal or official stamp used by the state or government agency, except upon written approval of the competent authority.

According to the Central Jakarta commercial court judge, "Piaget" is not a well known trademark that can be filed outside of the time frame, although in the lawsuit, Richemont International SA said that "Piaget" is a famous trademark, but the central Jakarta commercial court judge claims that famous trademark can not be proven in the commercial court and considered that Richemont had no legal standing to cancel the "Piaget Polo" trademark Hartafadjaja version.

Trademark "Piaget" was founded in 1874 by Georges Piaget in the village of La Côte-aux-Fees and in 2008, ranking study findings jewelry The Luxury Institute jewelery include Piaget trademark as the 6th most prestigious is what makes the basic reason that "Piaget" are trademarks known, and is accompanied by its trademark registration in several countries.

Although the commercial court judge rejected a lawsuit from Richemont with the reason that Piaget is not a well known trademark, but the basis of the court's decision was in favor of the Richemont is Article 69 paragraph (2), namely that the "cancellation lawsuit can be filed indefinitely if the trademark concerned contrary to religious morality, decency, or public order ".

Bad faith referred to in the decision is that the trademark "Piaget Polo" want to hijacking the fame of the trademark "Piaget" on the goods and / or services are produced, so that it is exactly in accordance with the Supreme Court judges was in favor of the trademark "Piaget" assume that the trademark "Piaget Polo" who want to piggyback on the fame the trademark "Piaget" contrary to morality or public order so that the cassation is granted by the Supreme Court.