The level of public awareness in registering design and industrial rights is still low. This is inseparable from a lack of understanding regarding the meaning of protecting creativity. Based on the records of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights (HKI) of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, registration regarding design and industrial rights is only 4 thousand people.
That number is very low compared to the number of countries in Asia. In China, for example, the number can reach 500 thousand registrants each year.
“There are many creative people in Indonesia, but their protection is lacking. Many do not understand the meaning of protecting creativity,” said Director General of IPR, Freddy Haris on Jalan Lembong, Bandung City, Tuesday (12/3).
On that basis, he declared this year as the year for registration of industrial design rights. This right itself has been regulated in Law Number 31 of 2000 concerning Industrial Design.
It all started when Indonesia ratified an international agreement with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1998 regarding Trade-Related Aspects Of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIP’s). As a consequence of the agreement, Indonesia finally issued a number of laws.
Namely the Copyright Law, Trademarks, Patents, Industrial Designs and the Integrated Circuit Protection Law. All these provisions regulate the matter of protection and legal sanctions for violators.
The substance of the rules regarding intellectual property rights is more about the protection and economy of creative people. But, according to him, there are still many who are aware of it, so they choose to neglect to register the results of their creativity.
Even so, he considered the understanding of this matter showing no progress. Many cases of copyright infringement make the public gradually realize as well as the fear that their work will be copied.
An example of a violation of industrial design was experienced by Friska Noviana (40), a resident of Bekasi City who made one product in 2009. She was asked by consumers to maintain the exclusivity of the product. Friska then registered her product design with the Directorate General of intellectual property rights at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights.
“My application was approved in 2016. However, during the submission, until the certificate was issued, my product was copied on the outside and I suffered a huge material loss,” said Friska.
He filed a summons on the copycat but was still ignored. He reported it to the police, but still did not get satisfactory results. Until finally, he reported to the Directorate General of Intellectual property rights to be handled and processed. However, the process was hampered by having to present expert witnesses at a costly price.