Brand disputes once again demonstrate their complexity through the case of the use of the name “Denza” in Indonesia. In the latest development, the cassation process at the Supreme Court resulted in a decision that did not favor the plaintiff, thus affirming that in trademark law, procedural aspects can be a determining factor, even before delving into the merits of the case.

Case Overview

This case originated from a dispute over the ownership and use of the “Denza” trademark between a global company and a local party in Indonesia. At the cassation level, the Supreme Court, in its decision Number 1338 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2025, declared the lawsuit inadmissible.

The decision was based on an error in identifying the legal subject (error in persona), which arose due to a change or transfer of trademark ownership to another party before the lawsuit was properly processed.

In other words, the case was not fully decided based on who was "more entitled" substantively, but rather due to the incorrect party being sued in the legal process.

Legal Analysis: Error in Persona in Trademark Disputes

From a civil law perspective, error in persona is a formal defect that can cause a lawsuit to be declared inadmissible (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). This means:

• The court does not delve into the merits of the dispute
• The substantive rights of the parties are not necessarily determined as right or wrong
• The lawsuit can be refiled with the correct party

In the context of trademark law, this condition often occurs when:

• There is a transfer of rights (assignment) of the trademark
• Changes in ownership are not followed by an updated litigation strategy
• Ownership data is not synchronized with the actual situation

Academically, this indicates that trademark protection does not solely depend on the exclusive rights attached, but also on the accuracy of the litigation strategy.

Territorial Dimension in Trademark Law

This case also reaffirms a fundamental principle in trademark law: trademark rights are territorial (territorial principle), meaning:

• Global trademark ownership does not automatically apply in Indonesia
• Each country has its own registration and enforcement system

Practical Implications for Businesses

From this case, there are several important lessons, namely:

1. Registration alone is not enough. It must be followed by monitoring ownership and updating legal data
2. Transfers of rights must be anticipated strategically. Otherwise, it can lead to errors in identifying the party in a lawsuit
3. IP litigation requires high precision. Formal errors can invalidate the entire process without addressing the substance of the rights

The “Denza” case shows that in trademark disputes, victory is not only determined by who owns the rights, but also by the accuracy in executing legal procedures.

In practice, the approach to trademarks cannot be purely administrative. A comprehensive analysis is needed from the beginning, starting from registration, management, to legal enforcement strategies, so that trademarks are not only registered but also effectively protected in every jurisdiction.