Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the ruling in Case No. 269/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material judicial review of Law No. 31 of 2000 on Industrial Design, Monday (2/2/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court declared the petition filed by PT Dtech Inovasi Indonesia inadmissible in its judicial review of Article 2 of Law No. 31 of 2000 on Industrial Design (Industrial Design Law). The ruling in Case No. 269/PUU-XXIII/2025 was handed down in a plenary courtroom session on Monday, February 2, 2026, presided over by Suhartoyo.

Delivering the Court’s legal considerations, Chief Justice Suhartoyo explained that after carefully examining the Petitioner’s petitum, the Court found the formulation to be unclear. Essentially, the Petitioner requested that the phrase “disclosure” in Article 2 paragraph (2), the elucidation of Article 2 paragraph (2), and Article 2 paragraph (3) of Law No. 31 of 2000 be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner also argued that disclosure carried out by the industrial design applicant within six months prior to the filing date should not eliminate the element of novelty.

However, according to the Court, such a petitum created ambiguity. Although the Petitioner sought a declaration that the contested norms were inconsistent with the Constitution, it did not explicitly request that those norms be declared “not legally binding,” nor did it seek a conditional interpretation (conditionally unconstitutional).

Suhartoyo emphasized that the Petitioner merely asked the Court to declare the norms unconstitutional. In fact, pursuant to Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 10 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, the Court’s decisions are final. The inclusion of the phrase “not legally binding” in a petitum is therefore essential, as it is directly related to the legal consequences expected from a judicial review ruling.

The omission of such phrases rendered the petitum incomplete and procedurally irregular. It also created uncertainty regarding the continued applicability of a norm that has binding legal force since its promulgation and may subsequently be invalidated by a Court ruling. As a result, the Court concluded that the Petitioner’s petitum was deficient and atypical in the context of judicial review proceedings.

Based on those legal considerations, and due to the Petitioner’s lack of precision and thoroughness in formulating its petitum, the Court found no doubt in declaring the petition obscure (obscuur).

“In the verdict, the Court adjudicates that the Petitioner’s petition is inadmissible,” Suhartoyo stated.

Also read:

Petitioner Argues Industrial Design Law Is Unfair to Creative Industry Actors

Petitioners Refine Arguments in Industrial Design Law Review

Article 2 of Law No. 31 of 2000 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; or
b. the priority date, if the application is filed with priority rights;
c. publication or use in Indonesia or abroad.

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

The Petitioner further contended that the provision fails to provide sufficient adaptive space in response to the rapid development of the creative economy and the penetration of digital technology, both of which have become pillars of national and global economic growth. In practice, the publication of creative works in the digital era often occurs swiftly, massively, and sometimes inadvertently. Designers frequently showcase their creations on social media, digital catalogs, e-commerce platforms, and online portfolios as part of legitimate business strategies.

Nevertheless, the Petitioner argued that Article 2 of the Industrial Design Law classifies such publications, even when carried out by the designer themselves, as “prior disclosure,” thereby eliminating the element of novelty and automatically nullifying the designer’s entitlement to legal protection. This, according to the Petitioner, results in the loss of rights over works born from intellectual capacity, expertise, financial investment, and hard work.

The absence of an exception for self-disclosure, the Petitioner maintained, creates legal uncertainty that adversely affects thousands of creative industry actors who play a vital role in national development. The norm places them in a disadvantaged position merely due to limited awareness of the administrative and technical aspects of intellectual property law. The state, Alif asserted, should instead provide a legal 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 : Yuanna Sisilia

The Complete Decision: Decision No. 269/PUU-XXIII/2025

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.

---