22 Jun 2026
Denza Trademark Dispute: Reaffirming Indonesia’s First-to-File Principle

The recent resolution of the “Denza” trademark dispute in Indonesia has once again highlighted the importance of trademark registration strategy for foreign businesses entering the Indonesian market. The dispute, involving Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer BYD Company Limited (
“BYD”) and a locally registered “Denza” trademark, illustrates how Indonesia’s trademark regime strongly emphasizes the “first-to-file” principle, even against globally recognized brands.

The case has attracted significant public attention, particularly given BYD’s growing presence in Indonesia’s electric vehicle sector and the global recognition of the Denza brand. Nevertheless, the outcome serves as a timely reminder that global commercial reputation does not automatically guarantee trademark protection in Indonesia.

1. Background

Denza is a premium electric vehicle brand developed by BYD. As BYD expanded its global operations, including into Southeast Asia, the company sought to secure legal protection over the “Denza” trademark in various jurisdictions, including Indonesia.

However, in Indonesia, the “Denza” trademark had reportedly already been registered by a local party, PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi with Trademark Registration No. IDM001176306 (source: pdki-indonesia.dgip.go.id per 18 May 2026). BYD subsequently initiated legal proceedings seeking cancellation of the locally registered trademark, arguing, among others, that “Denza” constituted a well-known trademark associated with its international business operations.

The Supreme Court, through Decision No. 1338 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2025, ultimately rejected BYD’s claim, and the locally registered trademark remained valid. Notably, the Panel of Judges resolved the matter on the basis of error in persona — a procedural finding that the claim had been directed against the wrong party — rather than on the substantive merits of BYD's well-known trademark argument. As a result, the "Denza" trademark under Registration No. IDM001176306 remains registered in the General Register of Marks maintained by the Directorate of Trademarks and Geographical Indications.

While the detailed legal reasoning of the courts may involve multiple considerations, the dispute primarily illustrates the operation of Indonesia’s trademark framework and the practical risks of delayed trademark filing.

2. Overview of Indonesia’s Trademark Framework

Trademark protection in Indonesia is principally governed by Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications (“Trademark Law”). Indonesia adopts a “first-to-file” system, meaning that trademark rights are generally granted to the party that first files and successfully registers the trademark with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (“DGIP”). In practice, ownership or prior use in another jurisdiction does not automatically confer trademark rights in Indonesia.

This differs from jurisdictions that follow a “first-to-use” principle, where actual commercial use of a mark may create enforceable rights even without registration.

Under the Indonesian framework, trademark registration plays a central role in establishing legal ownership and enforcement rights. Consequently, foreign businesses entering Indonesia are generally encouraged to secure trademark registration as early as possible, ideally prior to market entry, public announcements, or product launches.

The Denza dispute demonstrates the legal and commercial risks that may arise when trademark filings are delayed.

3. Protection of Well-Known Trademarks Under Indonesian Law

Although Indonesia applies a first-to-file system, the Trademark Law also recognizes protection for “well-known trademarks.” Indonesia’s obligations under international agreements, including the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, further support such protection.

In principle, a trademark application may be rejected, or an existing registration may be cancelled, if it imitates or resembles a well-known trademark belonging to another party.

However, proving “well-known” status in practice may be challenging. Article 36 of Government Regulation No. 5 of 2026 on Trademark Registration (“GR 5/2026”) assesses multiple factors, including:

• the level of public recognition or awareness of the trademark within the relevant business sector as a well-known trademark;

• the sales volume of goods and/or services, as well as the profits generated from the owner’s use of the trademark;

• the market share held by the trademark in relation to the circulation of goods and/or services in the market;

• the geographical scope of the trademark’s use;

• the duration of the trademark’s use;

• the extent of the trademark's promotion and advertising activities, including the investment value allocated to such promotions;

• the registration of the trademark or applications filed in other countries;

• the level of success in trademark enforcement, particularly recognition of the trademark as a well-known trademark by the relevant authorities; or

• the value attached to the trademark arising from its reputation and the quality assurance associated with the goods and/or services protected under the trademark.

Importantly, global recognition alone may not always be sufficient. Courts may also consider whether the trademark had achieved substantial recognition in Indonesia at the relevant time.

As noted above, the Denza case did not ultimately turn on these well-known trademark factors — the dispute was resolved on procedural grounds (error in persona) before the substantive issues were examined. The framework above nonetheless remains the relevant standard for any future dispute in Indonesia raising a well-known trademark claim.

4. Bad Faith Registration and Trademark Squatting

The Denza case also revives broader discussions regarding trademark squatting and bad faith registration practices in Indonesia, even though these issues were not directly addressed in the court's decision.

Trademark squatting generally refers to situations where a party registers a trademark associated with another business, often anticipating future commercial value or seeking leverage against the original brand owner.

Indonesia’s Trademark Law prohibits trademark applications filed in bad faith. Nevertheless, establishing bad faith may require substantial evidence and can be procedurally complex.

From a policy perspective, cases such as Denza highlight an ongoing tension in Indonesia's trademark system between:

• maintaining legal certainty through strict adherence to registration rules; and

• preventing opportunistic registrations that may disadvantage legitimate brand owners.

While the first-to-file system promotes clarity and administrative efficiency, cases involving internationally recognized brands often raise questions about the balance between procedural certainty and equitable considerations.

5. Practical Implications for Foreign Businesses

The Denza dispute provides several practical lessons for foreign investors and businesses planning to enter Indonesia:

1. File Early and Research Before Filing

   Trademark registration should be a priority during market-entry planning. Before launching products or announcing expansion plans, businesses should conduct comprehensive trademark searches to identify existing registrations or potential conflicts, and file promptly where no conflicting rights are identified. Delayed filings may expose businesses to disputes, rebranding costs, or limitations on brand usage.

2. Register Across Relevant Classes

   Businesses should consider registering trademarks across all commercially relevant classes to ensure broader protection.

3. Monitor Third-Party Filings

   Continuous monitoring of trademark filings may help identify potentially conflicting applications at an early stage.

4. Integrate IP Protection into Investment Strategy

   Trademark protection should not be viewed merely as an administrative formality, but rather as an essential component of legal risk management and investment strategy.

Key Takeaway

The Denza trademark dispute is an important reminder of how Indonesia's first-to-file trademark regime operates in practice. Even where a brand is globally recognized, an existing local registration may prevail — and in this case, the dispute was resolved on procedural grounds before the well-known trademark question was even reached.

As Indonesia continues to attract foreign investment and international brands, proactive trademark registration should remain an integral part of any market-entry plan.

By partner Ayik C. Gunadi (agunadi@abnrlaw.com), associates Evelyne Irmea (esinisuka@abnrlaw.com), and Reza Kinanti (rkinanti@abnrlaw.com).

This ABNR News and its contents are intended solely to provide a general overview, for informational purposes, of selected recent developments in Indonesian law. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Accordingly, ABNR accepts no liability of any kind in respect of any statement, opinion, view, error, or omission that may be contained in this legal update. In all circumstances, you are strongly advised to consult a licensed Indonesian legal practitioner before taking any action that could adversely affect your rights and obligations under Indonesian law.