Sony AK vs Sony Inc.

Recently, electronics manufacturer Sony Corporation demanded Sony Arianto Kurniawan (Indonesian) to close down his website : www.sony-ak.com, because the Japanese company alleged that the website is an infringement of right on its trademark Sony.

Sony Corp. made said demand because it has spent many years and lots of money for research, production and promotion of electronics products bearing the trademark Sony. Especially if the trademark Sony has been registered in Indonesia and other countries.

In my humble opinion, Sony Corp. have been over confident in making the said demand, because protection given by trademark registration is limited to certain types/kinds of products covered by said trademark.
In this case, Sony Corp. is a manufacturer of electronics products, whereas the website: www.sony-ak.com is only a personal website of its owner that provide free information.

Efforts to settle the problem has failed because Sony Corp. insists that Sony AK should close his website, while the later refused because he has created the website using his own name since 2003 for personal usage, and he does not produce and sell anything, and has no bad intention in doing so.
And according to the demand letter issued by Sony Corp.'s Jakarta lawyer, Hadiputranto, Hadinoto & Partners, the company would pursue legal action if Sony AK refuse to comply.

Considering the above, many people have come to the support of Sony AK, among others through the social networking media Facebook.

For details, please click here, here, here, here, here and here.

I hope that both parties would find a best way to settle their differences according to the applicable laws and regulation.

Image : Courtesy of Detik

Abolish the IP Laws to save the Economy

Between 1960 and 1990, four Asian countries Taiwan, South Korea, Hongkong and Singapore, have developed their industries a lot much faster compared to any other countries in the world.

Many factors have been mentioned as the basis for their industrial progress, but according to Wikipedia the most determining factor is the Traditional Philosophies of the hard working people of those countries.
Meanwhile, Scripted wrote that such progress was achieved because during those years those countries have not been serious in protecting Intellectual Property (IP) right.

In this regards, I read a blog post in Legal Blog Watch about two Economists at Washington University i.e. Michele Boldrin and David Levine, who claimed to know how to revive the current economy crisis without any stimulus policy. Their proposal is to abolish the Patent, Trademark & Copyright laws which they said have discouraged innovation and prevent inventions from entering the marketplace.
In their book "Against Intellectual Property Monopoly" they said:
"So-called intellectual property is in fact an 'intellectual monopoly' that hinders rather than helps the competitive free market regime that has delivered wealth and innovation to our doorsteps,"
They said that there's plenty of protection and opportunities to make money for inventors and creators. And there are lots of ways to make money without IP.
However, the economists realized that it is impossible to eliminate the IP laws drastically, so they will propose an incremental approach to gradually reduce the scope of those laws.

Although the IP Laws may discouraged innovations and prevent inventions of certain people, especially those who have bad faith, however as any laws, the IP Laws are needed to ensure legal certainty and justice for the whole society in general.

The Sales of Ponari's Water

Indonesia has been dubbed by foreigners as a haven for infringement of Intellectual Property Rights owned by Indonesians as well as foreigners.

Here are examples of possible infringement of trademark of a well known POCARI, and name of the currently popular 'Ponari's sacred water':



The photos show that the Tin Cans are basically similar to that of the popular drink POCARI, only the letter "C" is changed with "N". At a time when many people in Jombang, East Java, are craving for Ponari's Water, circulation of Drinks bearing said trademark would surely misleading.



The photos also mentioned the website Http://continsportwear.y2n.biz, but after I checked it turned out to be the site of a Sport Clothes manufacturer.



Considering these facts, I hope that the above photos would not inspire people into selling tin canned drinks bearing those trademarks, so that our country's image as a haven for Intellectual Property Rights infringement would improved.

Intellectual Property Piracy

For many years, Indonesia has been regarded by countries like the U.S.A, the European Union, Japan, as a haven for Intellectual Property Rights piracy.

In order to improve our country’s image, our government and parliament have promulgated laws to protect domestic and foreign Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights and Industrial Designs, and punish violators. Besides, we have ratified International Intellectual Property Rights conventions and treaties. Further, our law enforcement agencies have implemented those laws, e.g by regular police raids in shopping places selling pirate products and prosecute the pirates in courts. However, foreign and local pirate products keep on circulating in many modern & traditional shopping places throughout Indonesia.

Due to this fact, foreign countries and international organizations have demanded Indonesia to improve the protection of those rights; some even threatened to impose trade sanction if our country doesn’t improve protection of those rights.
Bisnis Indonesia/Suwantin Oemar reported that the United States Trade Representative is currently evaluating the protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Indonesia. According to the Director General of Intellectual Property Rights Andy Sommeng, one of the objectives of said evaluation is to push for amendment of Intellectual Property laws in Indonesia.

In view of the above, I felt that our country can eliminate or at least minimize infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, if we consistently implement laws regarding Patent, Trademark, Copyright and Industrial Designs. Besides that, considering that many of the pirate products are imported, the Customs Office and the Department of Trade should also be involved, so that cheap imported pirate products would not be allowed to enter our country.

HABITAT Trademark Case

Gerrit van de Meent, is a Dutch citizen living in Jakarta where he work as the Director of PT. ESPI Swintad Pacific. Currently, he has been tried at the District Court of South Jakarta for his Company's usage of the Trademark SAFEHOUSE HABITATS which according to the Prosecutor is basically similar to Registered Trademark HABITAT No. 538991 in the name of Hot-Hed International SA. Based on the Trademark Law No. 15 Year 2001 Article 91, Gerrit could be punished with 3 years imprisonment.

In this regards, Hukumonline wrote that during Court trial today, Gerrit has requested the Council of Judges to release him from all charges. To support this request, his attorney i.e. Fahmi Assegaf SH, presented the Court with a Letter of the Director General of Intellectual Property Rights No. HKI.4.HI.06.06.0049.83/2008 dated 16 May 2008, which verify that the Trademark SAFEHOUSE HABITATS has no basic similarity with the Trademark HOT-HED HABITAT.
Further, Fahmi said that the PT. Hot-Hed Indonesia is not the rightful party to the trademark HABITATS which is registered by Hod-Hed International SA. Beside that both trademarks cannot be considered as basically similar because: SAFEHOUSE HABITATS consists of 17 letters while HOT-HED HABITAT only 13 letters. Further, the Accused did not produce and trade the goods using the trademark HOT-HED HABITAT, in stead the Accused only provide services for Maintainance of High Technology Equipments to be used for Oil Exploration and Cleaning of Oil Tanks.

On the contrary, Fahmi argued that the Trademark used as Evidence i.e. HOT-HED HABITAT is different from the Registered Trademark HABITAT No 538991. Considering that according to Art.61 Par.b of the Trademark Law, a Trademark which is used differently from its registration can be subject to Deletion, therefore registration of Trademark HABITAT No. 538991 should be Deleted.

Let us hope that the Council of Judges would eventually consider every aspects so that a fair judgement could be made.

Pic:CopyRightFreePhotos