含羞草社区

Trademark disputes, regulatory reforms and expansion pressures are forcing businesses to rethink brand protection

INDIA

INDONESIA

RUSSIA

TAIWAN

The business of ideas, and IP’s Indian moment

For many years, intellectual property in India was considered a specialised legal field, predominantly of interest to multinational corporations, technology companies or prominent consumer brands. Today, IP has become central to daily commerce. It affects the valuation of intangible assets by courts, the evaluation of risk by financiers, the management of distressed companies by insolvency professionals, and the launch of startups.

With the startup and MSME ecosystem in India showing an enhanced awareness of trademarks, branding and identity, courts and regulators are being obligated to address the growing complexity of inquiries concerning domain names, spectrum rights, pledges over intangibles, and brand ownership during restructuring.

Bottom of the pyramid

One of the most remarkable developments has been the expansion of IP awareness beyond formal corporate sectors. Small merchants, local retailers, online distributors and even street vendors are all recognising the growing significance of branding.

The development of e-commerce platforms, digital payments, food delivery applications and social media marketing has facilitated expansion in the reach of even the smallest businesses. A local merchant may now attract customers not only from the immediate neighbourhood, but from across the city or through online channels that serve consumers nationwide. A recognisable identity can provide a valuable commercial advantage.

The outcome is the democratisation of trademarks, which were previously perceived as a tool for large enterprises but are now gaining relevance for first-generation entrepreneurs. The trademark framework in India has become more accessible to entrepreneurs and smaller businesses, notably as a result of procedural reforms and e-filing initiatives.

Branding from day one

Today, IP is frequently regarded as an early-stage asset by modern entrepreneurs, rather than an afterthought. Founders are increasingly acknowledging that investors evaluate not only products or services, but also defensible brands and the capacity to scale under a distinctive commercial identity.

The impact of digital identifiers including domain names, app names, website branding and online marketplace identities has been frequently acknowledged in Indian law and commercial practice. These identifiers frequently serve the same source-distinguishing function as traditional trademarks by assisting consumers in determining the origin, authenticity and reputation of products.

This trend is reflected in recent market activity, where Indian startups in sectors including fintech, cosmetic retail, consumer electronics and digital services derive substantial commercial value not only from physical products or infrastructure, but from brand recognition, digital presence, customer trust and platform identity.

Consequently, the enterprise value of a startup may be substantial even before the business acquires sizable tangible assets, thanks perhaps to the name of its app, its website domain or its logo.

Rise of well-known marks

Companies are actively pursuing the recognition of their marks as well-known trademarks, as evidenced by the expanding list that have achieved this status. This trend is fuelled by the broader and more robust protection that well-known marks are afforded, which may extend beyond the specific products or services for which the mark is registered.

Additionally, this recognition serves to strengthen the organisation’s market position and reputation. It indicates that the mark has attained a high level of public recognition and goodwill, which can be used to enhance licensing or collaboration opportunities, support expansion into new markets, and strengthen consumer trust.

When businesses split

Structural changes including demergers, family settlements and the division of business verticals are becoming more prevalent as businesses expand and develop. These advancements frequently generate intricate inquiries regarding IP ownership and usage, particularly regarding trademarks, trade names and associated goodwill.

The challenge of partitioning intangible assets can be clearly seen in such circumstances. In contrast to physical property, trademarks are inherently indivisible in many cases due to their close association with consumer perception and reputation. Consequently, business separations are becoming more complex and necessitate meticulously organised arrangements to guarantee clarity and prevent potential future disputes.

Intangible asset questions

The classification of particular rights – such as spectrum allocations – as intangible assets with proprietary characteristics, or solely as regulatory permissions, is a developing legal issue. In litigation involving lenders, including proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India, questions of this nature have also arisen, where the commercial character and enforceability of such rights were examined.

Modern commerce depends not only on physical assets, but also on valuable rights generated through licences, authorisations and exclusive use arrangements, making issues of this nature more pertinent.

The resolution of such issues may have broader implications for the way in which Indian law conceptualises intangible property. Valuation, transfer, and use as security in commercial transactions may be feasible if specific rights are acknowledged as assets. Their transferability and enforceability may be restricted if they are rigorously regarded as statutory privileges.

Corporate restructuring issues

The treatment of IP in insolvency proceedings has emerged as a critical domain of commercial law. Questions frequently arise regarding whether IP assets, including trademarks and associated goodwill, form part of the corporate debtor’s asset pool or remain excluded due to separate ownership structures, licensing arrangements or prior assignments when companies undergo insolvency or restructuring.

Judicial developments have demonstrated that disputes regarding IP ownership and control may not always be in direct alignment with the insolvency process, and may necessitate separate adjudication contingent on the nature of the controversy.

When companies attempt to transfer or restructure IP during the insolvency process, additional complications arise. If IP is essential to the business but not obviously vested in the corporate debtor, the viability of a resolution plan may be impacted.

Unauthorised memes, content

It has also become a growing practice for brands to convert copyrighted film scenes, characters and dialogues into “memes” or viral trend content for promotional gain, without appreciating the legal consequences of such use. The mere fact that content becomes popular online or is widely circulated in meme culture does not place it in the public domain, nor does it extinguish the copyright subsisting in the original cinematograph film, screenplay, character depiction, performance elements or dialogue.

Accordingly, the unauthorised creation, adaptation and commercial dissemination of memes based, for instance, on the character portrayed by Rakesh Bedi as Jamil Jamali, including the phrase “Baccha hai tu mera” (You are my child), constitutes infringement when deployed to advertise or promote a brand. Businesses are responsible if they use copyrighted works for marketing, engagement or brand recall without getting permission, a licence or approval from the rightful owners.

Misleading claims

Across jurisdictions, consumer protection and unfair competition laws recognise that commercial messaging must be judged not only by its literal wording, but by the overall impression it creates in the minds of consumers. Where an advertisement, label or campaign conveys a false sense of origin, quality, endorsement, affiliation or approval, businesses may be liable for misleading representation and unfair commercial conduct.

Recent scrutiny surrounding the use of labels such as “Swiss Made” shows that commercial signifiers derive their value from authenticity, trust and reputation, and that misuse can mislead consumers even without an express false statement.

In statements issued in relation to enforcement of the “Swissness” regime, the Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property has emphasised that the value of the “Swiss” designation lies in its credibility, and that misuse must be restrained where it deceives consumers or exploits the reputation associated with Swiss origin.

Legislative reforms

Recent legislative initiatives, including the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, reflect a broader policy shift towards improving the ease of doing business through rationalised penalties, reduced procedural burdens and a more compliance-oriented regulatory framework. In the IP context, measures of this nature are particularly relevant for startups, smaller enterprises and growing businesses that regularly interact with regulatory systems while building and protecting their commercial assets.

As businesses increasingly rely on brands, technology and other intangible assets, the legal framework must remain efficient, proportionate and commercially practical. Reforms aimed at streamlining compliance and administration can strengthen confidence in the IP system.

Intellectual property has transitioned from the periphery of Indian law to the heart of Indian commerce, where it now determines who competes, attracts capital, commands value and endures.

ANAND AND ANAND
B-41, Nizamuddin East,
New Delhi 110013, India
Tel: +91 11 49146400
Fax: +91 120 4243058
Email: email@anandandanand.com

Back to top

---

Indonesia’s new trademark guidelines: Key changes

The Indonesian government has officially enacted Minister of LawRegulation (Permenkum) No. 5 of 2026, introducing significant updates to the regulatory framework governing trademark registration in the country.

The new regulation replaces Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 67 of 2016 (along with its subsequent amendments), which is now considered outdated and no longer aligned with current legal developments, administrative practices and business needs.

This article outlines key changes introduced under the regulation, particularly those relevant to foreign applicants, as well as procedural updates that may impact filing strategies.

Foreign applicant requirements

One of the most notable changes introduced by the regulation is the introduction of additional filing requirements for applicants domiciled outside Indonesia, which was not required previously. For trademark applicants residing outside of Indonesia, the updated filing requirements are as follows:

1. 1. Applicants domiciled outside Indonesia are no longer required to submit identity documents.
   2. If the applicant is a company/corporation, the articles of association/deed of establishment/business licence/company certificate must be locally legalised and sworn-translated into Indonesian by a sworn translator.
   3. Legalised copy of priority documents, sworn-translated into Indonesian by a sworn translator (if claiming priority rights).
   4. Power of attorney.
   5. Statement of mark ownership.

Flexible filing

A practical and business-friendly feature of the new regulation is the flexibility granted to applicants who are unable to complete all documentary requirements at the time of filing.

A trademark application may still proceed even if certain documents are missing at the time of submission. In such cases, the Indonesian Trademark Office will issue a formality office action requesting the applicant to submit the outstanding documents within two months from the date of the official notification.

Accelerated examination

Another key highlight of the new regulation is acceleration of the substantive examination process. Under the updated framework:

1. 1. If no opposition is filed by third parties, the substantive examination may be completed within a maximum of 30 working days.
   2. If an opposition is filed, the examination may be completed within a maximum of 90 working days.

However, it is important to note that while these timelines are prescribed under the regulation, actual practice may vary. Factors such as workload at the Trademark Office, complexity of the mark and the presence of objections or oppositions may result in longer processing times.

Applicants are therefore advised to treat these timelines as indicative rather than absolute.

Examination criteria

Articles 34 and 35 of the regulation set out the criteria for examination, prohibiting the registration of marks that violate state ideology, public morality or lack essential distinctiveness, such as generic terms and purely functional shapes. To ensure market transparency, applications are rejected if they are misleading regarding product quality, or were filed in bad faith.

Furthermore, the law protects the identity of famous individuals and state institutions by requiring explicit authorisation for the use of names, photos or official symbols.

Central to these regulations is the “dominant elements” test, which determines if a new mark is substantially or entirely identical to existing or well-known trademarks. This assessment extends to the classification of goods and services, which are deemed “similar” based on their nature, distribution channels and consumer base.

By combining these strict ethical standards with a comprehensive analysis of brand similarity, the framework aims to prevent consumer confusion and protect the intellectual property rights of prior registrants.

Criteria: Well-known marks

The regulation also sets out criteria for determining a well-known mark. As referred to in article 34, this is established by considering:

1. 1. Level of public knowledge or recognition of the mark in the relevant business field as a well-known mark;
   2. Sales volume of goods and/or services and profits gained from use of the mark by its owner;
   3. Market share held by the mark in relation to the circulation of goods and/or services in the community;
   4. Geographical scope of the mark’s use;
   5. Duration of the mark’s use;
   6. Intensity and promotion of the mark, including the investment value utilised for such promotion;
   7. Trademark registrations or applications in other countries;
   8. Success rate of law enforcement in the field of trademarks, particularly regarding recognition of the mark as well-known by authorised institutions; or
   9. Inherent value of the mark obtained through its reputation and quality assurance of the goods and/or services it protects.

Changing name/address

Registered trademark owners and applicants of pending trademarks in Indonesia have a clear legal pathway to update their records if their name or address changes, or if a clerical error occurred during the initial filing.

The process is designed for efficiency, allowing for both digital and physical submissions, provided that the owner submits supporting evidence such as identity documents or corporate deeds and pays the required administrative fees.

The ministry follows a strict timeline for these updates, completing initial examinations within 15 days and providing a grace period of two months for applicants to fix any missing paperwork.

Once approved, the change is officially recorded and publicised in the Official Trademark Gazette, ensuring that legal registry always accurately reflects the current identity and location of the trademark owner.

Assignments/transfer of rights

The regulation allows for the transfer/assignment of trademark rights through various channels including inheritance, contractual agreements and charitable endowments.

A vital restriction exists to protect market clarity. If an owner possesses several trademarks that are substantially similar for the same types of goods or services, they cannot “split” the portfolio.

Instead, all related marks must be transferred to the same recipient. This prevents a situation where different owners might use confusingly similar brands in the same industry, which would undermine the trademark’s role as a unique source identifier.

Furthermore, the law maintains strict linguistic standards. Any foreign legal documents must be accompanied by a certified Indonesian translation to be valid. This ensures that the state registry remains accurate and legally enforceable within the Indonesian jurisdiction. The deed of assignment should also be notarised to be accepted by the minister for further processing.

Once the application is filed, it undergoes a mandatory examination period of 15 days to verify document integrity. The ministry provides a structured two-month window to rectify any deficiencies, ensuring that minor clerical errors do not immediately void a transfer.

Following approval, the transfer is not only recorded but also published in the Official Trademark Gazette. This final step of public notification serves as the official legal notice to the public, solidifying the new owner’s rights and maintaining the integrity of the national trademark database.

Collective marks

Collective marks in Indonesia are designed for group-based entities like associations, co-operatives or government bodies supporting MSMEs, rather than individual owners. To register, applicants must provide standard brand details along with a mandatory “Terms of Use” document, which outlines the quality standards of the goods, how the group will supervise its members’ use of the mark, and what penalties exist for non-compliance.

Beyond standard administrative paperwork, the regulation accommodates modern branding by requiring specific technical formats for 3D, sound and hologram marks. Essentially, the regulations ensure that collective marks function as a shared “seal of quality” for a group, while applying the same rigorous procedural standards used for individual trademarks to maintain legal consistency.

Force majeure provisions

The regulation also introduces explicit provisions addressing force majeure situations – an important addition that provides greater legal certainty and procedural flexibility. These apply in the event of extraordinary circumstances such as:

1. 1. War
   2. Revolution
   3. Civil unrest
   4. Labour strikes
   5. Natural disasters
   6. Other comparable emergencies

Applicants may request an extension of time to fulfill their obligations. This extension may apply to various procedural stages, including:

1. 1. Initial filing requirements
   2. Submission of priority documents
   3. Changes of name or address
   4. Recordal of assignment
   5. Submission of responses to provisional refusals or rejections

The inclusion of force majeure provisions is particularly relevant in today’s global context, where unexpected disruptions – whether geopolitical or environmental – can significantly impact business operations and administrative processes.

Back to top

---

TM survival for brands absent or suspended from Russian market

Transformation of the international business climate and the evolving geopolitical landscape have prompted many foreign companies to reassess their presence in the Russian market. Whether through suspension of operations, scaling back commercial activity or a complete exit, the practical consequence for brand owners is the same: trademarks registered in Russia risk falling into a state of non-use, with the attendant legal vulnerabilities that follow.

At the same time, the Russian consumer market remains one of the largest in the Eurasian region, and the prospect of a future return makes the question of preserving trademark rights not merely a legal formality but a matter of long-term commercial strategy.

Russian trademark protection depends on registration

In the Russian legal framework, trademark protection is strictly registration based. Exclusive rights arise on state registration and are certified by a certificate issued in respect of a specific list of goods and services, as provided by articles 1481 and 1484 of the Civil Code.

The scope of protection is accordingly bound by the register entry rather than by the actual market presence or commercial reputation. In commercial terms, a trademark concentrates the accumulated value of a brand – investments in marketing, quality control, distribution and consumer communication – in a single designation that enables purchasers to identify the origin of goods and services with confidence.

For many companies, registered trademarks represent one of their most valuable assets. Loss of registration does not merely eliminate a legal right. It removes a strategic instrument that may take years and significant resources to rebuild.

Three-year non-use risks cancellation

Under article 1486 of the Civil Code, legal protection of a trademark may be terminated prematurely – in respect of all or part of the registered goods and services – if it has not been used continuously for a period of three years. Any interested party may initiate cancellation proceedings by first sending a formal proposal to the rights holder and, absent agreement, filing a claim before the IP Court.

The burden of proving use falls on the rights holder. Use is recognised where a trademark is applied by the rights holder or by a person acting under the rights holder’s control. Use via parallel import channels, which has become more prevalent following partial legalisation of parallel imports for certain goods and brands in March 2022, does not meet this standard.

For companies that suspended or terminated supply operations in Russia during 2022, the three-year grace period elapsed in 2025, rendering their trademark portfolios directly vulnerable to cancellation actions.

Passive absence invites trademark attacks

The risks associated with a passive approach during a period of market absence are cumulative and mutually reinforcing. Competitors and bad-faith actors regularly monitor the register for marks that have entered a non-use period.

Applications for identical or closely similar designations – composite marks incorporating dominant elements of well-known brands, transliterations, or minor graphic variations – have been used to exploit the absence of the original rights holder.

In the Xiaomi case, the IP Court terminated legal protection for class 21 goods after the trademark owner failed to produce qualifying evidence of use and could not establish, as a matter requiring specific proof, that the mark enjoyed widespread recognition in Russia in relation to those goods (resolution of the IP Court, 16 February 2023, No. SIP1257/2021).

Marks belonging to Amazon, NEC, Lenovo, Victoria’s Secret and others have, meanwhile, been subjected to analogous attacks.

Beyond cancellation, prolonged absence creates conditions for dilution and loss of customs enforcement mechanisms, which are instruments of considerable practical importance in combatting counterfeit goods at the point of importation.

Russian courts are unlikely to regard voluntary market withdrawal as an excusable reason for non-use within the meaning of article 1486. While the law permits consideration of circumstances beyond the rights holder’s control, the decision to exit the market does not meet this threshold under current judicial practice.

Proactive refiling resets non-use clock

One of the most effective instruments available to rights holders in these circumstances is the proactive refiling of an application for a designation that maintains a legal connection with the original brand while establishing a new registration date, thereby resetting the three-year non-use period.

A fresh registration converts a legally vulnerable asset into one that is legally current.

Refiling is, however, subject to a structural constraint. Article 1481 of the Civil Code confirms that the exclusive right to a trademark is certified by a single registration certificate.

State registration of a designation identical to an already registered mark in the name of the same rights holder for an identical list of goods and services is inconsistent with the nature of the exclusive right and may be refused by the trademark agency Rospatent as contrary to public interests. A strategy therefore needs to be developed.

Three refiling strategies for trademarks

Three principal approaches are available in practice. The first, and legally most straightforward, involves modifying the designation itself: filing an application for a mark that is not identical to the registered trademark but preserves its essential recognition.

This is achieved by adding verbal elements such as a qualifier or product line identifier or alternatively registering the verbal component separately from the graphic logo or vice versa, or by introducing minor graphic refinements.

This avoids the exclusivity conflict while maintaining the commercial link with the original brand.

The second approach involves maintaining the designation but modifying the list of goods and services. Filing an application covering a different set of goods and services does not conflict with the earlier registration and produces a fresh certificate with an independent priority date.

The third approach – filing for an identical mark for identical goods with the intention of subsequently abandoning the earlier registration – is legally possible but commercially the least desirable, as the priority date is irrevocably lost. This option should be considered only where the first two are inapplicable.

A combined strategy of co-ordinating several applications covering different designations and lists provides the greatest flexibility and the most resilient legal position.

Fee changes demand narrower specifications

A recent amendment to the rules governing official fees for trademark filing and renewal has introduced an additional charge for each good or service designated beyond the first 10.

This change has direct practical implications for refiling strategies because the cost of maintaining broad, comprehensive lists of goods and services – a common practice designed to maximise the formal scope of protection – increases materially.

Accordingly, the drafting of the goods and services list now requires a more deliberate and commercially focused approach. Rights holders should conduct a careful audit of the existing list and identify the positions that represent actual or anticipated commercial interest.

Protection in respect of positions that are neither currently used nor realistically likely to be used in the foreseeable future generates additional fee liability without producing the corresponding legal benefit.

Precision in list drafting therefore serves both to reduce costs and to sharpen the scope of protection in relation to the goods and services that genuinely matter. Moreover, such an approach significantly reduces the risk of potential collision with third parties’ rights that may result in cancellation actions or oppositions by those third parties aimed at removal of the conflicting marks from the register.

Current registrations secure Russia re-entry

Should conditions permit a resumption of commercial activity in Russia, the existence of a valid registration will be decisive.

A company with current registrations will be able to assert priority against conflicting marks filed during the period of absence and pursue enforcement through the available administrative and judicial mechanisms, which continue to function effectively and without discrimination against foreign rights holders.

Russian law and the consistent practice of Rospatent do not accommodate bad-faith registrations. Attempts by third parties to register designations confusingly similar to those owned by others can be successfully challenged, especially provided that prior registered rights exist and are asserted in a timely manner.

A company that has allowed its registrations to lapse will face a materially more complex re-entry, potentially requiring invalidation proceedings against marks filed in its absence.

Shift from passive to strategic approach

In conditions of forced reduction of market activity, the management of trademark rights must shift from a reactive to a strategic posture. A passive approach – proceeding on the assumption that the situation will resolve itself before the three-year non-use period expires – carries a level of legal risk disproportionate to the cost of the available preventive measures.

Proactive refiling is a legitimate and commercially rational instrument for preserving legal presence in a jurisdiction where physical commercial activity has been reduced or suspended.

Combined with a disciplined approach to list drafting – particularly in light of the amended fee structure – it allows rights holders to maintain the legal infrastructure of their brand at a manageable cost, ensuring that when the conditions for market re-entry are met, the legal gateway remains open.

Gorodissky & Partners
B Spasskaya Str, 25, bldg 3
Moscow 129090, Russia
Tel: +7 495 937 6116
Email: pat@gorodissky.com

Back to top

---

Taiwan’s global trademark strategy for brand expansion

When a company is preparing to expand its products, services or platform from one market into many, the brand name is often the first point of legal exposure. If trademark clearance and filing architecture are not completed in advance, common consequences include: the brand already being registered by a third party in the target market; takedowns on e-commerce platforms after launch; local distributors or business partners rushing to file the mark first; and reduced deal value in financing, licensing or franchise negotiations because ownership is unclear.

Accordingly, trademark strategy should not be understood as a simple act of filing an application. A more mature approach is to treat trademarks as infrastructure for brand expansion. Before entering a market, a company should establish a naming and search protocol, then prioritise which countries to file first, which classes deserve early coverage, and which brand variants should be protected together. This approach balances legal risk control with commercial execution speed.

Plan for naming, filing, monitoring and licensing

Key idea: A trademark filing is not the end of the process.

It is the legal foundation for brand governance, channel expansion, cross-border licensing and investment negotiations.

Six strategic pillars

Global TM strategy framework

Recommended market prioritisation:

• First ring: Principal revenue markets, headquarters jurisdiction, and major export destinations.
• Second ring: Manufacturing locations, OEM/ODM sites, active distributor jurisdictions, and key marketplace countries.
• Third ring: Regions likely to be involved in licensing, franchising, fundraising or M&A discussions within the next 12-24 months.

Regional planning, rollout path

Trademark registrability, use requirements, opposition practice and examination standards vary across jurisdictions. A global strategy does not mean filing everywhere at once. It means applying a consistent brand principle through a phased, region-by-region and risk-based implementation model.

Suggested 12-month rollout rhythm

Governance checklist for brand legal team

Conclusion

A mature global trademark strategy is not a simple exercise of filing the same brand name in multiple countries. It is a co-ordinated legal and commercial framework that supports market entry, digital channels, licensing, strategic partnerships and enterprise valuation.

Companies that establish naming governance, priority-country coverage, evidence management and enforce- ment mechanisms early are usually able to save substantial downstream cost while reducing the risk of reactive brand protection.

DEEP & FAR ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
13th F1., No. 27, Sec. 3, Chung San N. Rd.
Taipei 104, Taiwan, ROC
Tel: +886 2 25856688 #8187
Fax: 886 2 25989900
Email: lawtsai@deepnfar.com.tw

Back to top