Evidentiary Strength of Notarial Deeds in Trademark Disputes: Registration, Transfer, and Litigation in the DENZA Case of BYD Company Limited Versus PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59261/jlsp.v4i4.180Keywords:
Notarial Deed, Trademark Registration, DENZA DisputeAbstract
Background: This article examines the evidentiary strength of notarial deeds in the DENZA trademark dispute between BYD Company Limited and PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi within Indonesia’s first-to-file trademark system. The dispute highlights the relationship between registration priority, ownership statements, good faith, and evidence of trademark transfer in litigation.
Objective: This study aims to analyze the role and evidentiary value of notarial deeds in determining trademark ownership, transfer validity, and legal certainty within Indonesia’s trademark registration framework.
Methods: This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The analysis examines trademark regulations, civil evidentiary principles concerning authentic deeds, notarial law, and Decision Number 1/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2025/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. jo. Supreme Court Decision Number 1338 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2025.
Results: The findings show that trademark registration in Indonesia follows a constitutive system, where first-to-file priority must be accompanied by good faith and valid ownership evidence. In the DENZA dispute, the notarial deed did not create trademark rights but functioned as authentic evidence of trademark transfer. Its evidentiary strength became significant when supported by recordal evidence from the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI). This study contributes by connecting the evidentiary function of notarial deeds with trademark administration and dispute resolution.
Conclusion: Notarial deeds provide legal certainty in intellectual property transactions; however, courts must distinguish between contractual transfer, administrative recordal, and substantive trademark validity. The findings offer implications for notarial practice, trademark litigation, and intellectual property governance in Indonesia.
References
Alexsander, C. C., & Kansil, C. S. T. (2025). Legal protection for first trademark registrants: An analysis of the substantive examination system of trademarks in Indonesia. Jurisprudensi: Jurnal Ilmu Syariah, Perundang-Undangan Dan Ekonomi Islam, 17(2), 382–397.
Dandapala. (2026, 15 April). Ini pertimbangan Mahkamah Agung dalam sengketa merek Denza! https://dandapala.com/article/detail/ini-pertimbangan-mahkamah-agung-dalam-sengketa-merek-denza
Directorate General of Intellectual Property. (n.d.). Merek: Formulir dan format surat. Ministry of Law, Republic of Indonesia. https://dgip.go.id/menu-utama/merek/formulir-dan-format-surat
Directorate General of Intellectual Property. (n.d.). Merek: Pengenalan. Ministry of Law, Republic of Indonesia. https://www.dgip.go.id/menu-utama/merek/pengenalan
Directorate General of Intellectual Property. (n.d.). Prosedur pendaftaran merek baru. Ministry of Law, Republic of Indonesia. https://dgip.go.id/menu-utama/merek/syarat-prosedur
European Union. (2017). Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (codification). Official Journal of the European Union, L 154, 1–99.
Farooq, M., Noor, A., & Naeem, M. (2023). Does family ownership moderate the relationship between board characteristics and corporate social responsibility? Evidence from an emerging market. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 12(1), 71–99.
Finezea, S., Mahadewi, K. J., Nandari, N. P. S., & Sudharma, K. J. A. (2025). Penerapan asas first to file dalam penyelesaian sengketa merek Denza (Studi kasus BYD vs PT WNA). Al-Zayn: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial & Hukum, 3(5), 6446–6451. https://doi.org/10.61104/alz.v3i5.2269
Japan. (1959). Trademark Act (Act No. 127 of 1959) (As amended 2021). Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
Khanom, M. T. (2023). Using social media marketing in the digital era: A necessity or a choice. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 12(3), 88–98.
Kolmašová, Š., & Kolmaš, M. (2026). Venezuela, the United States, and the performativity of the non-intervention norm in international relations. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=6204738
Law Number 2 of 2014 concerning Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning Notary Office. (2014).
Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation into Law. (2023).
Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. (2016).
Mary, T., & Enoch, O. (2024). Legal considerations in the development and commercialization of corporate intellectual property. International Journal of Rural Development, Environment and Health Research, 8(3), 1–20.
Ossai, M. O. (2025). A legal overview of the role and functions of trademark in the global commercial spectrum. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University Law Journal, 9(1).
Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat (Central Jakarta Commercial Court). (2025). Decision Number 1/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2025/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst.
Pokrovskaya, A. (2024). Protection of trademark rights on e-commerce platforms: An updated outlook. Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research, 1(2), 65–73.
Regulation of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Number 12 of 2021 concerning Amendment to Regulation Number 67 of 2016 concerning Trademark Registration. (2021).
Regulation of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Number 67 of 2016 concerning Trademark Registration. (2016).
Restu, A. L., Hayya, B. S., & Dwiandi, D. (2025). Analisis sengketa merek dagang Denza antara PT Worcas dan BYD dalam perspektif hukum kekayaan intelektual di Indonesia. CAUSA: Jurnal Hukum dan Kewarganegaraan, 14(7).
Saka, R., & Santiago, F. (2024). Legal certainty of trademark registration to improve the welfare of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). Jurnal Locus: Penelitian Dan Pengabdian, 3(11), 874.
Singapore. (1998). Trade Marks Act (Chapter 332) (As revised 2005). Intellectual Property Office of Singapore.
Simon, D. A. (2020). Trademark Law & Consumer Safety. Fla. L. Rev., 72, 673.
Siswani, C. B. (2025). Implementation of good faith principles in trademark registration in Indonesia. Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities, 5(6), 5178–5185.
Stobbs, J., Zhou, Y., Weber Bain, A., & Swana, K. (2022). Overview of United Kingdom trade mark cases 2021. IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 53(3), 406–419.
Sujatmiko, A. (2026). Legal Protection Of Well-Known Trademarks: Reasons Why Famous Trademarks Have Their Protection Expanded: Legal Protection Of Well-Known Trademarks: Reasons Why Famous Trademarks Have Their Protection Expanded. JIC: Jurnal Hukum dan Konstitusi, 2(3), 113-132.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2025). Decision Number 1338 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2025.
Vincent, Mota, R. A., & Itaar, I. G. (2026). Implikasi prinsip first to file dalam sengketa merek Denza antara BYD dan PT Worcas Nusantara Abadi. Unes Journal of Swara Justisia, 10(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.31933/y6432t18
World Intellectual Property Organization. (1979). Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property (As amended 1979).
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2024). World intellectual property indicators 2024. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-941-2024-en-world-intellectual-property-indicators-2024.pdf
Zakiya, W. (2025). Role and protection of trademarks as business identity in intellectual property rights. Journal of Law and Social Change Review, 1(01), 43–52.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nike Sepvinasari, Wayan Surya Subrata, Henry Soelistyo Budi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
