A trademark dispute over the well-known Semarang fish product Bandeng Juwana has grown into a closely watched commercial case in Indonesia, pitting PT Bandeng Juwana against PT Bandeng Juwana Indonesia in the Commercial Court at the Surabaya District Court. The case is registered as No. 10/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2025/PN Niaga Sby and, as of late March and early April 2026, remains in the evidentiary stage rather than having reached a final ruling.
The dispute centers on whether later-registered marks used by PT Bandeng Juwana Indonesia are confusingly similar in name and visual presentation to the earlier Bandeng Juwana business that has long been associated with the souvenir market in Semarang, the capital of Central Java province. Media reports describe the claimant as the business behind Bandeng Juwana Elrina, a brand said to trace its commercial roots to 1981, when the enterprise began as a home-based operation before expanding into a prominent Central Java gift-food business.
The product itself is pressure-cooked milkfish (“bandeng” in Indonesian language) that is later individually vacuum-wrapped and sold mainly as edible souvenirs for tourists visiting Semarang.
Reporting across several outlets identifies the main plaintiff as PT Bandeng Juwana, represented in court by counsel Haposan Gilbert Manurung, while the main defendant is PT Bandeng Juwana Indonesia, whose side has been represented publicly by lawyer Kevin Lumentut. Is it is required in such case, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property is also included in the lawsuit as co-defendant because it issued the challenged registrations.
The plaintiff’s narrative is that the Bandeng Juwana/Elrina identity was built over decades and that the disputed later marks risk consumer confusion and reputational harm. According to testimony cited by media, the name “Juwana” was linked to the hometown of founder Ida Nursanty, while “Elrina” referred to the initials or names of the founders’ children, and the business used fish imagery and related design elements as part of its brand identity from early on.
The defense, however, has argued that its marks were not entirely new creations. In the 2 April 2026 hearing report, a defense witness and Surabaya-based IP consultant, Beny Muliawan, said he had assisted with registrations related to “Juwana” from 2008 to 2023 and described an earlier filing history that included “Juwanna” in 1995 and “Juwana” in 2004, along with objections, counterstatements, and a successful appeal before the trademark appeal body. The defense has therefore framed the matter as part of a longer chain of registrations and renewals, while also arguing that logo changes are normal in business development.
The plaintiff has tried to narrow the controversy by arguing that its claim does not attack every historical use connected with earlier successors, but specifically targets marks registered after 2020 in the name of PT Bandeng Juwana Indonesia. He also asserted that his client is the lawful owner under both first-to-file and first-to-use principles as recognized by the Indonesian IP system.
Other media coverage adds commercial context as PT Bandeng Juwana said it only discovered the allegedly overlapping registrations in 2024 when dealing with BPOM (Indonesia’s food and drugs licensing authority) licensing, after regulators asked for clarification because similar Bandeng Juwana marks were already recorded at the DGIP. That account helps explain why a dispute involving a legacy regional brand surfaced publicly only recently, despite references to much older underlying registrations.
The latest publicly reported status is that the case is still ongoing. Official and media reports in March 2026 said hearings were continuing with fact and expert witnesses, and in 2 April 2026 a media report confirmed that the court would proceed with further examination of evidence and testimony. Until a judgment is issued, the Bandeng Juwana dispute remains an active test of how Indonesian trademark law will weigh long-term market recognition, filing chronology, alleged bad faith, and the risk of confusion surrounding one of Semarang’s best-known souvenir brands.