Trademark “JMB & Logo” of Dr. Ago Harlim

Dr. Ago Harlim Successfully Regains “JMB” Trademark Registration in Class 03 Through Surabaya Commercial Court

Read in Indonesian Language

Dr. Ago Harlim’s success in winning the JMB trademark dispute case between Dr. Ago Harlim and Jauharil Maknunah at the Surabaya Commercial Court has become an important highlight in Indonesia’s intellectual property law. This ruling reinforces the court’s commitment to protecting legitimate trademark owners from bad-faith registrationsand cross-class infringement.

Through a lawsuit filed by his legal counsel, H. Amris Pulungan, S.H., et al. from the Pulungan, Wiston & Partners Law Office, Dr. Ago Harlim successfully reclaimed the exclusive rights to the “JMB” trademark, which had previously been registered by another party under Class 03 for cosmetic products.

This decision represents not only a victory for the Plaintiff but also an important precedent in the enforcement of trademark protection in Indonesia. It serves as a reminder to businesses to uphold honesty and respect the intellectual property rights of others.

Case Summary

This lawsuit concerns a trademark dispute between Dr. Ago Harlim (Plaintiff), represented by his attorney H. Amris Pulungan, S.H., et al. from Pulungan, Wiston & Partners in Jakarta, and Jauharil Maknunah (Defendant). The case was examined by the Commercial Court at the Surabaya District Court, under Case Number 11/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2024/PN.Niaga.Sby.

The object of the lawsuit was the cancellation of the Defendant’s trademarks:

  • “JMB & Logo” and
  • “NEW JMB JM Beauty by Jauharil M & Logo”,
  • which were deemed substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s “JMB & Logo” mark that had been registered earlier.

The Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI), Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, was listed as a Co-Defendant.

The Plaintiff has used the “JMB” mark since 1993 and owns the trademark “JMB & Logo” (Reg. No. IDM000200559)registered since October 4, 2007. This trademark is used in the beauty clinic business (Class 44) and enjoys a wide reputation across many cities.

The Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had registered:

  • “JMB & Logo” (Reg. No. IDM000618037) in Class 3 on February 22, 2017, and
  • “NEW JMB JM Beauty by Jauharil M & Logo” (Reg. No. IDM001210189) in Class 3 in 2017,
  • both for cosmetic products.

In the Plaintiff’s view, the dominant element “JMB” creates the same impression, causes consumer confusion, and shares a close business relationship within the beauty industry. This indicated that the Defendant’s registration was made in bad faith, knowing of the Plaintiff’s prior rights.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, represented by H. Amris Pulungan, S.H., et al., filed a lawsuit for cancellation of the Defendant’s trademarks on November 24, 2024, at the Surabaya Commercial Court under Case No. 11/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2024/PN.Niaga.Sby.

Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit

  • Article 76(1) of Law No. 20 of 2016 – cancellation suits may be filed by an interested party based on Articles 20 and 21.
  • Article 77(2) – cancellation may be filed without time limitation if bad faith is proven.
  • Article 21(1)(a) – registration must be refused if it bears substantial similarity to an earlier registered mark.
  • Article 21(3) – a mark may be canceled if registered in bad faith.

Although the goods/services are in different classes (3 and 44), they are closely related within the same field—beauty and cosmetic care.

The court was advised to refer to the Supreme Court Jurisprudence No. 122 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 (Natasha Skin Care case), which affirms protection of well-known marks across classes.

Substantial Similarity

Based on visual and phonetic examination:

  • Both trademarks use the letters “JMB” as the dominant element.
  • The addition of “NEW” or “JM Beauty by Jauharil M” does not change the overall impression, which still causes consumer confusion.
  • The Defendant’s marks suggest a business connection with the Plaintiff’s mark.

Thus, they fall under “substantial similarity” as stipulated in Article 21(1)(a) of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications.

Bad Faith

  • The Defendant knew of the Plaintiff’s “JMB” trademark before registering their own.
  • The Defendant’s actions were intended to imitate a well-known brand and exploit the reputation of JMB Beauty Clinic.
  • The element of bad faith was proven as per Article 21(3) of the Trademark Law.

Cross-Class Protection

  • Despite differing classes (3 and 44), the judge found the goods and services closely connected in the same industry—cosmetics and beauty care.
  • Using a similar mark in one industry may mislead consumers and harm the original owner.
  • Referring to Supreme Court Jurisprudence No. 122 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 (Natasha Skin Care), the decision affirms protection for well-known marks, even across different classes.

Court’s Decision

  1. Reject the Defendant’s objection.
  2. Grant the Plaintiff’s claim in full.
  3. Declare the Plaintiff as the first rightful owner of the “JMB & Logo” trademark.
  4. Declare the Defendant’s trademarks “JMB & Logo” and “NEW JMB JM Beauty by Jauharil M & Logo” invalid and canceled.
  5. Declare the Defendant’s registrations were made in bad faith.
  6. Order the DJKI to remove the marks from the General Trademark Register and publish the decision in the Trademark Gazette.
  7. Order the Defendant to pay court costs of Rp 1,221,000.

Legal Analysis

This ruling reinforces the “first-to-file” principle in Indonesian trademark law:
rights belong to those who register first in good faith, not merely those who use the mark earlier without registration.

However, the first-to-file rule is not absolute — if registration is made in bad faith, the court may invalidate it.

The court found that:

  • The dominant similarity (“JMB”) indicated intent to ride on the reputation of the Plaintiff.
  • Evidence of promotion and usage of “JMB” in an identical context supported trademark plagiarism claims.
  • The Defendant was deemed to have deceived the public for commercial gain by exploiting the Plaintiff’s brand reputation.

Although the classes differ, the court found a substantial link between beauty clinic services (Class 44) and cosmetic products (Class 3).
Both share similar functions and target consumers.

The judges concluded that the Defendant’s registration aimed to imitate and capitalize on the Plaintiff’s established reputation.
This ruling strengthens the protection of well-known marks in the beauty industry and sets an important precedentdefining the boundary between legitimate use and unlawful imitation.

This aligns with Article 17(2) of Ministerial Regulation No. 67/2016, which recognizes cross-class relations when there is:

  • similarity of purpose,
  • promotional methods,
  • target consumers, and
  • distribution channels.

Conclusion

The “JMB & Logo” trademark owned by Dr. Ago Harlim, represented by H. Amris Pulungan, S.H., et al. of Pulungan, Wiston & Partners in Jakarta, is recognized as lawfully registered first.
The Defendant’s registrations of “JMB & Logo” and “NEW JMB JM Beauty by Jauharil M & Logo” are invalidated due to substantial similarity and bad faith.

Exclusive rights to the “JMB” trademark remain with the Plaintiff, and the DJKI is required to remove the Defendant’s marks from the General Register.

This decision reinforces legal protection for reputable beauty clinic trademarks, clarifies the boundary between legitimate use and bad-faith imitation, and stands as a key precedent in the cosmetics and beauty industry—where imitation of brand names with similar dominant elements is common.