The Petitioners during the petition revision hearing for Case No. 269/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of Law No. 31 of 2000 on Industrial Design, Monday (1/26/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held a petition revision hearing on Monday, January 26, 2026, for the judicial review filed by PT Dtech Inovasi Indonesia. The company is represented by its Director, Fajar Budi Laksono.

The hearing examined the revised petition in Case No. 269/PUU-XXIII/2025 concerning the judicial review of Article 2 of Law No. 31 of 2000 on Industrial Design (Industrial Design Law). During the session, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Doni Pratama Siregar outlined several substantive revisions to the petition.

Among the revisions were the narrowing of constitutional arguments to focus specifically on the phrase “disclosure” in the contested article; the addition of elaboration regarding the Court’s authority to adjudicate the petition; the submission of the company’s deed of establishment to affirm that the Director legally represents the company before the court; and a more detailed explanation of the alleged constitutional losses arising from the phrase “disclosure,” including clarification of their nature and classification.

“In the grounds of the petition, we elaborate on theories and doctrines from other jurisdictions that are relevant to this case, including marketing theory as well as theories on recognition and incentives in industrial design. We also describe factual circumstances concerning the 12-day period related to our design, which we consider detrimental to us,” Doni stated before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, alongside Constitutional Justices Anwar Usman and Enny Nurbaningsih.

Also read:

Petitioner Argues Industrial Design Law Is Unfair to Creative Industry Actors

Article 2 of the Industrial Design Law stipulates that:
(1) Industrial Design Rights shall be granted to industrial designs that are new.
(2) An industrial design shall be deemed new if, on the filing date, it is not identical to any prior disclosure.
(3) Prior disclosure as referred to in paragraph (2) means any disclosure of the industrial design made prior to:
a. the filing date;
b. the priority date, if the application is filed with priority rights; or
c. publication or use in Indonesia or abroad.

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, January 12, 2026, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Muhamad Alif Ferdiansyah argued that the challenged provision gives rise to legal injustice because it does not distinguish between disclosures made by the designer themselves and those made by third parties. According to the Petitioners, in industrial and manufacturing practice, such disclosures constitute an integral component of modern marketing strategies to introduce products, build branding, and assess consumer interest.

The Petitioners further contended that the article fails to provide adequate adaptive space in response to the rapid expansion of the creative economy and the increasing penetration of digital technology, both of which serve as pillars of national and global economic growth. In practice, the publication of creative works in the digital era often occurs swiftly, widely, and sometimes unintentionally. Designers frequently showcase their creations on social media, digital catalogs, e-commerce platforms, and online portfolios as part of legitimate business strategies in a modern commercial environment.

However, the Petitioners argued that Article 2 of the Industrial Design Law classifies such publication, even when carried out by the designer themselves, as “prior disclosure,” thereby eliminating the element of novelty and automatically extinguishing the designer’s right to legal protection. This, they asserted, results in the loss of rights over works produced through intellectual capacity, expertise, financial investment, and hard work.

The absence of an exception for self-disclosure, Alif added, generates legal uncertainty that adversely affects thousands of creative industry players who contribute significantly to national development. The provision places them in an unequal position merely due to limited understanding of the administrative and technical aspects of intellectual property law. The state, he emphasized, should instead provide a regulatory framework that enables innovators to derive economic benefits from their creativity.

Explore the Case: Case No. 269/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : N. Rosi
Translator : Mauliza Ara Rizki/Yuanna Sisilia

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

 

---