Descriptiveness and Stylisation in Indonesia: Why a Basic Font Won’t Pass the DGIP’s Examination (Article 20(b))

Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) applies a rigorous distinctiveness standard during substantive examination. Under Article 20 of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Marks and Geographical Indications (the Trademark Law), marks that lack distinctiveness are refused registration on absolute grounds. A common misconception among international applicants is that rendering a descriptive word in a special font or combining it with a basic geometric shape will be enough to overcome a descriptiveness objection. In Indonesian practice, it is not.

The Legal Framework: Article 20

Article 20 of the Trademark Law lists the categories of marks that cannot be registered. The relevant provisions include:

• Article 20(a): Marks that are contrary to state ideology, laws, morality, religion, decency, or public order.
• Article 20(b): Marks that are identical with or relate to the goods or services for which registration is applied. This covers descriptive marks that directly indicate the nature, quality, quantity, ingredients, value, or other characteristics of the goods or services.
• Article 20(c): Marks that contain elements that may mislead the public about the origin, quality, type, size, or intended use of the goods or services.
• Article 20(d): Marks that contain information that is not in accordance with the quality, benefit, or efficacy of the goods or services produced.
• Article 20(e): Marks that lack distinguishing power.
• Article 20(f): Marks that constitute a generic name or symbol of public property.

Article 20(b) and 20(e) are the provisions most frequently applied to descriptive marks. The DGIP examines whether the mark, as filed, is capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or services from those of others.

Why Basic Stylisation Fails

The DGIP’s examination practice is consistent with a principle common across Southeast Asian jurisdictions: when a mark consists primarily of a descriptive word, the addition of minor visual elements does not transform it into a distinctive mark. The reasoning is that consumers will perceive the mark through its verbal, descriptive content, regardless of the font, colour, or basic graphical treatment applied to it.

Examples of stylisation that typically fail to overcome a descriptiveness refusal:

• Descriptive word in a decorative font: Writing “HERBAL” in an ornate script for herbal products does not remove the descriptive character.
• Word inside a basic shape: Placing “SEGAR” (meaning “Fresh” in Indonesian) inside a circle or rectangle for food products adds no meaningful distinctiveness.
• Simple colour treatment: Applying a colour gradient or outline to a descriptive word does not change its descriptive nature.
• Generic iconography: Combining a descriptive word with a generic symbol related to the goods (e.g., a leaf for natural products, a gear for engineering services) typically fails because both elements are non-distinctive for the relevant goods.

The Dominant Element Test

The DGIP applies a dominant element analysis when examining composite marks (marks containing both word and device elements). If the descriptive word remains the dominant, most prominent element of the mark — the element that consumers will remember, pronounce, and refer to — then the mark as a whole is treated as descriptive, regardless of any secondary visual elements.

For stylisation to succeed, the graphic or device element must be sufficiently distinctive in its own right and must dominate the overall commercial impression of the mark. This means the device must be complex, original, and visually prominent enough that consumers perceive it as the primary identifier — with the descriptive word functioning as a subordinate, secondary component.

Article 22: The Generic Name Exception

A related provision, Article 22, addresses marks that contain a generic name with additional wording or elements. Article 22 provides that a generic name may be registrable as part of a mark to the extent that the mark as a whole contains distinctive elements. However, the generic component will not receive independent protection — only the distinctive elements carry enforcement value.

This means that an applicant can include a descriptive or generic word in a composite mark, provided that the mark also contains a genuinely distinctive element (such as a coined word, an inventive logo, or a unique graphic treatment). The descriptive element will be treated as part of the overall mark but will not form the basis for exclusive rights claims.

The Foreign Language Factor

The DGIP assesses descriptiveness in both Bahasa Indonesia and foreign languages. English descriptive terms are routinely refused when they describe the goods or services in a way that Indonesian consumers would understand. Given Indonesia’s large and digitally connected consumer base, the DGIP treats common English commercial terms as descriptive, particularly in sectors such as technology, fashion, food and beverage, and cosmetics.

Additionally, the DGIP considers transliterations and translations of foreign words into Bahasa Indonesia. A mark that is non-descriptive in its original language may be refused if its Indonesian translation or commonly understood meaning is descriptive of the goods.

Strategic Recommendations

• Choose inherently distinctive marks: Coined, arbitrary, or suggestive marks avoid the descriptiveness issue entirely and receive the strongest protection.
• Invest in a distinctive device element: If a descriptive word is important to your brand identity, pair it with a complex, visually dominant logo or graphic device. The device must be the element consumers perceive first.
• Do not rely on font or colour alone: Basic typographic or colour treatments will not overcome a descriptiveness refusal.
• Test Bahasa Indonesia perception: Before filing, assess whether the mark — or its translation — is descriptive in Bahasa Indonesia.
• Accept the descriptive element’s limited scope: If a composite mark includes a descriptive word, understand that enforcement will be limited to the mark as a whole. Third parties using the descriptive word alone will be difficult to challenge.

Common Mistakes

• Assuming a stylish font creates distinctiveness: The DGIP focuses on the dominant element. If it remains a descriptive word, the font does not matter.
• Combining a descriptive word with a generic symbol: Two non-distinctive elements do not combine to create distinctiveness.
• Ignoring Bahasa Indonesia descriptiveness: Foreign-language terms that are widely understood in Indonesia are assessed for descriptiveness.
• Filing without a substantive examination strategy: Unlike some jurisdictions, the DGIP’s refusal on absolute grounds under Article 20 can only be challenged through a formal appeal to the Trademark Appeal Commission — not through examiner dialogue.

Key Takeaway

Article 20 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law establishes a strict distinctiveness standard, and the DGIP’s substantive examination enforces it rigorously. Descriptive words cannot be rescued by minor stylisation, basic geometric shapes, or simple colour treatments. The device element must dominate the mark’s overall impression for the application to succeed. For international brands, the most effective strategy is to invest in inherently distinctive marks or to develop genuinely distinctive visual identities that carry descriptive words through to registration as subordinate components.