Ikea's trade mark loss has been widely reported the last
week or so. Full background is
here. The Swedish company hasn't suffered quite the major
loss that has been reported in the media, and it doesn't need
to rebrand its shop, but the legal details behind it are
interesting. The case concerned IKEA's marks in classes 21 and
22 (which cover mainly kitchen and housewares). Ratania
Khatulistiwa a local furniture company sought to cancel these marks
for non use in Indonesia.
The reason for the Supreme Court finding against Ikea was that
they hadn't used the IKEA marks on goods in those classes for a
3 year period. The relevant provision of the Trademark Law can be
read two ways. Firstly that the mark hasn't been used for the
last 3 years (before a case is filed). But secondly that there is a
3 year period from a particular date to a second date, 3 years
afterwards when no use took place. So with Ikea's marks 3 years
went and they later started use in a subsequent
