Trademark Cancelled based on Well-Known Mark

Zippo Successfully Cancells a Look-Alike Mark in the Commercial and Supreme Courts

Zippo Manufacturing Company instructed SKC Law to cancel a look-alike trademark registration in Class 34, the class that covers its lighters. This trademark litigation in Indonesia was brought against PT Mega Lighterindo Internusa, an Indonesian company with no connection to Zippo, which had registered the mark ZIPPER.

Three questions decided the case. Were the two marks confusingly similar? Did ZIPPO qualify as a well-known mark? Had the later mark been filed in bad faith? We’ll go through how Bagus Lestanto and Matius Hutabarat framed the matter, shaped the approach, ran the proceedings, and secured the final decision.

The Challenge

A Look-Alike Mark in Class 34

PT Mega Lighterindo Internusa registered ZIPPER under Registration No. IDM001026236, with a filing date of 12 January 2022 and registration recorded on 15 November 2022. Its registration covered Class 34, the same class as Zippo’s lighters and smokers’ articles. ZIPPER was not a coincidental near-miss. ZIPPER shared ZIPPO’s first four letters, its visual composition, and much of its pronunciation. It also sat in the exact field where Zippo has built its reputation.

Zippo’s Position in Indonesia

Zippo held four prior registrations in Class 34, all registered before the Zipper application was ever filed. That portfolio covered both the Zippo word and the brand’s distinctive flame device.

ZIPPO also carried a reputation that extends well beyond its registrations. ZIPPO is known worldwide for its windproof lighters, and for the distinctive click the lid makes when it opens and closes. Decades of promotion, investment, and sales across many countries stand behind the name.

The Approach

Cancellation Before the Commercial Court

SKC Law filed a claim for cancellation of the ZIPPER registration with the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court. A cancellation action is the route a prior rights holder uses to remove a conflicting mark from the register. Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property was joined as a co-defendant – it administers the register and would carry out any cancellation the court ordered.

The Three Grounds

Zippo’s action rested on three connected grounds. Each one had to hold.

• Essential similarity. Zipper was confusingly similar to the Zippo marks in appearance, composition, and pronunciation, for identical goods in Class 34.
• Well-known status. Zippo is a well-known mark, supported by extensive international use, promotion, sales volume, and registration across many countries.
• Bad faith. The Zipper application was filed in bad faith. The intent was to ride on Zippo’s reputation and to mislead consumers into treating the two marks as one source.

Building the Case

SKC Law’s team, led by Partner Bagus Lestanto with Associate Matius Hutabarat, prepared the cancellation and assembled the supporting record. That evidence established Zippo’s prior registrations, its global reputation, and the side-by-side similarity between the marks. The evidentiary case was built and presented, from trademark comparison to the bad-faith argument. Each of the three grounds was supported by documented facts rather than mere assertions.

A win that held at both levels rested on the quality of that groundwork. Bagus and Matius’s conduct of the matter and work on the record carried the case from the Commercial Court through to the Supreme Court, and SKC Law is proud of their part in securing this result for Zippo.

The Decision at First Instance

In 2025, the Commercial Court granted Zippo’s claim in its entirety. The court recognised ZIPPO as a well-known mark, and found ZIPPER similar to Zippo’s earlier marks for similar goods. On the third ground, it held that the ZIPPER registration had been filed in bad faith. Cancellation followed for all goods, with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property directed to cancel the trademark and publish the result.

The Cassation Appeal

PT Mega Lighterindo Internusa did not accept the Commercial Court result, and filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. It asked the Court to set aside the first-instance decision and reject Zippo’s claim in full.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

On 6 May 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal. The panel found that the Commercial Court had applied the law correctly – the first-instance decision did not conflict with the governing trademark legislation. On each point that matters in trademark cancellation proceedings in Indonesia, the Court confirmed:

• ZIPPER is confusingly similar to the Zippo marks, visually and phonetically, for similar goods.
• ZIPPO is a well-known mark, earned through the scale and duration of its use, promotion, and registration internationally.
• The ZIPPER registration was made in bad faith, to trade on ZIPPO’s reputation in a way that would mislead consumers.

With the cassation rejected, the cancellation of the ZIPPER registration stands. The decision is final and binding, subject only to the limited grounds for civil review.

Practical Takeaways

This outcome reinforces several points that brand owners in Indonesia should keep in mind. Well-known marks receive protection that reaches beyond identical copies. A later mark that merely borrows the leading letters, composition, and sound of an established brand can still be cancelled. Courts will examine the filing intent behind a near-identical registration, particularly where the goods are identical and the senior mark is well known. A documented record of prior registrations, reputation, and concrete similarity carries that kind of case from first instance through to cassation.

The result also reflects the value of a clean, layered portfolio held before any dispute arises. Zippo’s four prior registrations in Class 34, covering both word and device, gave the cancellation a foundation the later registrant could not displace. For a recent example of how a registered mark anchors a recovery action, see our work on domain name recovery for Sennheiser. On the similarity question specifically, see our note on trade dress protection and trademark similarity.

SKC Law advises rights holders on trademark litigation in Indonesia and on brand protection strategy in Indonesia, from registration through to enforcement. To discuss a conflicting mark or a cancellation action, contact our team at enquiries@skclaw.id, or visit our prosecution and litigation services.

Submit a specific enquiry via the Contact Page.

Follow us on LinkedIn for further updates on Indonesian IP.

This content is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on specific matters, contact enquiries@skclaw.id.