The storage battery trademark dispute currently under trial at the Central Jakarta District Court involves a company from India that manufactures lead and electric storage batteries, which is the plaintiff, and a local businessman, who is the defendant. The company, Exide Industries Limited, has ten international standard factories spread across five states in the country, […]
The storage battery trademark dispute currently under trial at the Central Jakarta District Court involves a company from India that manufactures lead and electric storage batteries, which is the plaintiff, and a local businessman, who is the defendant.
The company, Exide Industries Limited, has ten international standard factories spread across five states in the country, out of which 8 factories are dedicated to lead-acid batteries and 2 factories manufacture Home UPS Systems. They also have manufacturing facilities in Sri Lanka, UK and Singapore and does business globally through its subsidiaries and international affiliates
They export its batteries to more than 60 countries across the globe. It has a strong 95,000+ distributor & dealer / sub-dealer network.
Pursuant to this matter, the Indian company filed a cancellation lawsuit against the said local businessman in the District Court of Central Jakarta under case number 117/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2023/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst.
The plaintiff is seeking to establish their ownership and first use of the SF SONIC trademark, as well as its recognition as a well-known trademark.
Both trademarks protected the type of goods in class 9, such as accumulator, car battery, accumulator, uninterruptible power supply device, battery and battery cell, lithium ion battery, dry battery, electric battery, lithium battery, storage battery, solar battery, battery for vehicle, battery for electric vehicle, battery for mobile phone, rechargeable battery, Inverter, power inverter, capacitor, battery box, charger for electric battery, electric power control equipment, electric cell and battery, solar cell, solar cell and power generation panel, Renewable battery system for providing backup power, Interruption-free power supply, etc.
They argue that the defendant’s registration of the mark was filed in bad faith and is substantially or entirely similar to the plaintiff’s mark, and they are seeking to have the registration declared null and void. Additionally, the plaintiff is seeking damages.
Currently, this case is still in the early stages of court hearings, and the court’s verdict still needs to be made.
(source: http://sipp.pn-jakartapusat.go.id;
