Kesya Fadhilah Azzahra (1), Rianda Dirkareshza (2)
General Background: Well-known trademarks require legal protection to preserve exclusive rights, reputation, and fair market competition. Specific Background: This study compares protection models in Indonesia, Italy, and the United States. Knowledge Gap: Indonesian trademark regulation still lacks explicit and comprehensive provisions on dilution, judicial precedent, blurring, tarnishment, unfair advantage, and likelihood of confusion. Aims: This study analyzes the protection of well-known trademarks through comparative legal analysis using normative juridical and case approaches. Results: Italy and the United States provide broader safeguards through dilution-related doctrines that protect reputation, distinctiveness, and commercial identity, while Indonesia has progressed under Law No. 20 of 2016 but still requires clearer standards and stronger examination guidelines. Novelty: The study proposes reconceptualizing Indonesian well-known trademark protection by adopting explicit dilution provisions and structured assessment criteria. Implications: Future amendments should strengthen legal certainty, prevent bad faith registration, support fair competition, and maintain consumer trust.
Highlights:
Keywords: Well-Known Trademark, Famous Mark, Trademark Law
Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications, Art. 1, para. 1.
R. Dirkareshza, Buku Ajar Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual. Jakarta, Indonesia: Deepublish, 2022.
P. O. Samosir and A. Mustafa, “Legal Protection Implications on Trademark in Indonesia by Comparing the First to Use and First to File Principles,” in Proc. International Conference on Law Reform (INCLAR 2019). Paris, France: Atlantis Press, 2020, pp. 143–146, doi: 10.2991/aebmr.k.200226.029.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 264 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 450 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2014.
Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), Official Document, accessed May 22, 2026.
A. Wijaya, “Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Persamaan Pada Pokoknya dalam Sengketa Merek Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis,” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora dan Politik (JIHHP), vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 5081–5094, 2025, doi: 10.38035/jihhp.v5i6.5213.
R. Amir, “Menyoroti Hak dan Kewajiban Asasi Manusia dalam Aspek Ekonomi (Sebagai Ciri Negara Kesejahteraan/Welfare State),” Al-Amwal: Journal of Islamic Economic Law, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 96–110, 2017, doi: 10.24256/alw.v2i2.633.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), 2025 Special 301 Report. Washington, DC, USA: USTR, 2025.
Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Intelektual, Laporan Tahunan Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Intelektual Tahun 2019. Jakarta, Indonesia: Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Intelektual, 2020.
S. Soekanto, Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta, Indonesia: Rajawali Pers, 2001, pp. 13–14.
Muhadjir, Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif: Pendekatan Positivistik, Rasionalistik, Phenomenologik, dan Realisme Metaphisik Telaah Studi Teks dan Penelitian Agama. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Rake Sarasin, 1998.
I. G. M. Y. Winatha, A. G. A. I. Prathama, and P. C. K. Kayuan, “Comparative Analysis of Legal Protection and Criteria of Well-Known Marks (Indonesia, United States, India, China, and Germany),” Audito Comparative Law Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 43–54, 2023, doi: 10.22219/aclj.v4i1.23768.
C. B. Siswani, “Implementation of Good Faith Principles in Trademark Registration in Indonesia,” Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities, vol. 5, no. 6, 2025, doi: 10.38035/jlph.v5i6.2547.
I. Calboli and M. Senftleben, The Protection of Non-Traditional Trademarks: Critical Perspectives. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2021, doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198826576.001.0001.
D. Basma, “Dilution Versus Unfair Advantage: Myths and Realities,” IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 52, pp. 1217–1257, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40319-021-01116-z.
C. Gielen, “Trademark Dilution in the European Union,” in Law 2023. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023, pp. 188–226, doi: 10.4337/9781035312405.00021.
J. T. McCarthy, “Dilution of a Trademark: European and United States Law Compared,” in Trademark Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 159–174, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511735042.013.
M. A. Lemley, “The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense,” Yale Law Journal, vol. 108, p. 1687, 1999, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.147788.
P. Surakanti, “Fading Prestige: A Comparative Analysis of Trademark Dilution’s Impact on Luxury Fashion Brands in the United States and European Union,” IP Theory, vol. 15, no. 2, Art. no. 1, 2026.
S. L. Dogan and M. A. Lemley, “Parody as Brand,” University of California Law Review, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 473–501, 2013, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2170498.
H. Taylor, “The David-And-Goliath-esque Problematic of ‘Unfair Advantage’ in Trade Mark Law: Is the EU Moving Towards a Categorical Protection of Famous Brands?,” IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 52, pp. 1069–1085, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40319-021-01114-1.
D. Djulaeka, M. Zulkifli, T. D. Kumala, “Trademark Reconceptualization to Increase the Value of Creative Economy Products Based on Intellectual Property Rights,” in Proc. 5th International Conference on Law Reform (INCLAR 2024). Paris, France: Atlantis Press, 2025, pp. 284–294, doi: 10.2991/978-2-38476-362-7_41.
P. Johnson, “Enhanced Distinctiveness and Why ‘Strong Marks’ Are Causing Us All Confusion,” International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 55, pp. 185–212, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s40319-023-01400-0.
R. Saputra, P. Suwadi, W. N. Hanum, T. Tiolince, and G. B. G. Pratama, “Legal Certainty Based Protection of Well-Known Marks: Lessons from India,” Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 342–368, 2026, doi: 10.22219/ljih.v34i2.42820.