Indonesia’sfast-growing electric vehicle market has unexpectedly become the backdrop forone of the most compelling Intellectual Property showdowns in recent years. Amassive Trademark Infringement Lawsuit filed at the Central Jakarta CommercialCourt pits global automotive powerhouse BYD and its local distributionnetwork directly against a registered trademark holder. Beyond the eye-wateringfinancial figures, this high-profile litigation lays bare the unforgivingreality of territorial trademark rights in Southeast Asia’s largest economy,delivering a sharp wake-up call for multinational companies operating acrossthe region.
Theroots of this courtroom drama run deep and involve a masterclass in corporatedefense strategy. Building upon our earlier analysis of the initial proceduralhurdles and bad faith arguments surrounding the case, as explored in ourprevious coverage of the DENZA Re-Match, the conflict stems from asophisticated pre-litigation maneuver. Initially, BYD Company Limitedattempted to cancel the DENZA registration through a legal actionagainst PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi at the Central Jakarta CommercialCourt under case number 1/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2025/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst.
However,the litigation took a sharp procedural turn when the defense revealed that thetrademark ownership had already been legally assigned and transferred to PTRaden Reza Adi via a notarized deed prior to the filing of the lawsuit.Ruling on the matter, the Supreme Court of Indonesia ultimately granted theappeal under case number 1338 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2025. The high court firmlyestablished that BYD’s lawsuit suffered from a fatal improper party(error in persona), ruling the action inadmissible (nietontvankelijke verklaard) because the sued entity no longer held rightsto the contested mark.
Ratherthan retreating, the controversy evolved dramatically. Empowered by itsvalidated standing as the rightful exclusive right holder of the DENZAtrademark under registration number IDM001176306 for Class 12, PTRaden Reza Adi fired back by launching a sweeping Civil InfringementLawsuit on September 8, 2026. Filed under case number 101/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2026/PNNiaga Jkt.Pst, the complaint casts a wide net over seven defendantssimultaneously: BYD Company Limited, its core Indonesian operationalentities, and major local dealership networks including PT Arista ElektrikaIndonesia, PT Harmoni Target Indonesia, PT Bumi Hijau Motor,and PT Bipo Teknologi Otomotif.
Inits prayer for relief, the Plaintiff asks the court to formally recognize themas the sole rightful owner of the DENZA trademark and rule that thedefendants acted in bad faith. The financial demands are staggering, seeking Rp9.515.800.000.000in joint and severally liable material damages. On top of that, the Plaintiffis pushing for an immediate, total injunction halting all import, production,assembly, distribution, sales, and marketing of vehicles bearing the DENZAname or any confusingly similar variations, alongside a mandatory market-wideproduct recall.
Intriguingly,what makes this dispute particularly fascinating for industry observers is themulti-layered tactical playbook unfolding on both sides. Anticipating potentialroadblocks with its flagship trademark, BYD Company Limited also laidthe groundwork for a backup plan as early as mid-2025. On August 11, 2025, thecorporation filed applications for the DANZA trademark, securingofficial registrations in early 2026 under numbers IDM001414073 for Class12 as well as IDM001426542 for Class 37. Strikingly similarin sound and sight, DANZA serves as a textbook corporate safeguard,ensuring that the automaker retains a viable trademark presence in Indonesiashould the legal fight over DENZA hit a wall.
Forinternational trademark owners and global legal counsel, this unfolding sagaoffers a definitive lesson. Indonesia’s strict adherence to the first-to-fileprinciple means that global renown and deep financial resources cannot bypassthe absolute necessity of early local registration. Furthermore, meticulouspre-litigation investigative due diligence is vital to avoid proceduralpitfalls like improper party (error in persona) when facingsophisticated local opponents.
Navigatingthe nuances of Intellectual Property law in Indonesia requires sharp strategicforesight and steady guidance. ARBIL & Co. regularly assistsmultinational enterprises and international law firms in structuring resilientportfolio defenses and managing cross-border disputes. To explore how toprotect your trademark assets within the Indonesian market, you may connectdirectly with our specialist team at info@arbil.co.id.