1. Concept: Virtual Influencer Branding under Trademark Law (Indonesia)

A virtual influencer is a digitally created persona (AI/CGI/avatar) that functions as a commercial brand identity. In Indonesian practice, it is treated not as a “person,” but as a brand asset.

Under Trademark Act No. 20 of 2016 (Indonesia), protection applies when:

• The influencer’s name is used as a brand identifier
• The avatar becomes a source indicator of goods/services
• The digital persona is commercially exploited (ads, endorsements, NFTs, merchandise)

Key legal principle:
👉 A virtual influencer is protectable as a trademarked commercial identity, not as a human personality.

2. Trademark Framework Relevant to Virtual Influencers in Indonesia

(A) Trademark Protection Scope

Under Articles 21, 42, 83, 100 of Indonesian law:

• Prevents registration of confusingly similar marks
• Protects well-known marks even without registration
• Allows civil + criminal enforcement
• Covers dilution and reputation harm

(B) Application to Virtual Influencers

Virtual influencer branding may be protected as:

1. Name Trademark
   • e.g., “virtual influencer identity name”
2. Avatar Image Trademark
   • CGI face or character design functioning as brand logo
3. Voice / Persona Identity (indirect protection)
   • through unfair competition or reputation protection
4. Merchandise Branding
   • digital clothes, skins, NFTs in metaverse

📌 Problem in Indonesia:
The law does NOT explicitly define “virtual goods,” creating enforcement gaps in metaverse environments.

3. Key Legal Issues in Indonesia (Virtual Influencers)

1. Ownership of AI-generated persona
2. Trademark registration of digital identity
3. Unauthorized replication in metaverse (Roblox, NFTs)
4. Brand dilution in virtual space
5. Cross-border enforcement difficulty

4. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS (Detailed Explanation)

Below are 5+ major case laws (international + doctrinal cases used in Indonesian legal reasoning and IP scholarship).

CASE 1: Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (USA, 1988)

Facts:

Ford used a sound-alike singer to imitate Bette Midler in advertisements without consent.

Legal Issue:

Can imitation of a celebrity identity violate rights even without using the actual name?

Judgment:

Court held:

• Voice is part of identity
• Unauthorized imitation = misappropriation

Legal Principle:

👉 Identity (voice/style/persona) has commercial value and is protected.

Application to Virtual Influencers:

• AI voice cloning of influencers
• CGI influencers mimicking celebrities in ads

👉 In Indonesia: could fall under unfair competition + trademark dilution

CASE 2: White v. Samsung Electronics (USA, 1993)

Facts:

Samsung used a robot dressed like Vanna White (Wheel of Fortune host).

Legal Issue:

Does imitation of persona violate rights even without direct name/image use?

Judgment:

Court ruled in favor of White.

Legal Principle:

👉 “Persona identity” is protectable even indirectly.

Application:

• Virtual influencers styled after real celebrities
• AI avatars mimicking famous personalities

👉 In Indonesia:
Supports protection under Article 21 (well-known mark confusion)

CASE 3: Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets (USA, 1977)

Facts:

Company used slogan “Here’s Johnny,” associated with Johnny Carson.

Legal Issue:

Can slogans linked to identity be protected?

Judgment:

Yes—identity association is protected.

Principle:

👉 Identity-linked branding = protectable trademark asset.

Application:

• Virtual influencer catchphrases
• AI persona slogans used commercially

CASE 4: Hermès v. Rothschild (MetaBirkins NFT Case, 2023)

Facts:

Artist created NFT “MetaBirkins” resembling Hermès Birkin bags.

Legal Issue:

Does digital imitation of luxury branding in virtual space infringe trademark?

Judgment:

Court ruled:

• NFTs can infringe trademarks
• Digital goods still fall under brand protection

Principle:

👉 Trademark law applies to virtual goods.

Application to Indonesia:

• Roblox skins copying luxury brands
• Virtual influencer fashion endorsements
• NFT-based influencer merchandise

👉 Directly relevant to Indonesian metaverse gaps highlighted in legal research.

CASE 5: L’Oréal v. eBay (EU, 2011)

Facts:

Counterfeit L’Oréal products sold via online platform.

Legal Issue:

Is platform responsible for trademark infringement?

Judgment:

Platforms may be liable if they:

• Know about infringement
• Do not act to remove content

Principle:

👉 Online intermediaries must enforce IP rights.

Application:

• Instagram virtual influencer ads
• Roblox marketplaces selling branded avatars

👉 In Indonesia:
Supports platform liability under enforcement interpretation of Article 83.

CASE 6: GS Media v. Sanoma (EU, 2016)

Facts:

Website shared copyrighted content links knowingly.

Legal Issue:

When does sharing infringing content become liability?

Judgment:

If there is knowledge + profit, liability exists.

Principle:

👉 Intentional commercialization of infringing content = violation.

Application:

• Influencer promoting counterfeit virtual goods
• AI influencer monetizing fake brand collaborations

5. INDONESIAN CONTEXT CASE APPLICATION (Real Market Practice)

Although Indonesia has limited direct court rulings on virtual influencers, enforcement cases involving trademarks show clear analogies:

(A) Indomie Roblox Virtual Branding Issue

• Users created virtual goods using “Indomie” branding without permission
• Considered potential trademark dilution and confusion

Legal interpretation:
👉 Falls under Article 21 + Article 83

📌 Issue:
No explicit “virtual goods classification” exists, making enforcement inconsistent.

(B) SilverQueen Virtual Misuse in Gaming Platforms

• Brand identity used in digital accessories and game skins

Legal concern:

• Reputation dilution
• Unauthorized commercial association

(C) Influencer Trademark Disparagement Cases (Indonesia analogies)

Courts have held influencers liable for:

• brand misuse
• misleading endorsements
• unauthorized trademark use

Example principle:
👉 Influencer content can trigger trademark infringement liability if it affects brand reputation.

6. Legal Framework Synthesis for Virtual Influencer Branding

Indonesian Trademark Law Supports:

✔ Registration of virtual influencer names as trademarks
✔ Protection of brand identity (Article 21, 83)
✔ Civil + criminal enforcement
✔ Protection of well-known marks even without registration

BUT KEY LEGAL GAP:

❌ No explicit regulation for:

• AI-generated influencers
• Metaverse avatars
• NFTs or digital skins
• Cross-platform digital identity enforcement

7. Final Legal Principle (Exam/Research Conclusion)

In Indonesian markets:

Virtual influencers are protected indirectly under trademark law when their identity functions as a commercial source identifier, but enforcement relies heavily on analogical interpretation of traditional trademark principles.

8. Core Takeaways

• Virtual influencers are treated as brand assets, not legal persons
• Trademark law is the primary protection tool
• Global cases (Midler, White, Hermès v Rothschild) strongly influence interpretation
• Indonesia still has regulatory gaps in metaverse-specific trademark protection
• Platform liability and digital enforcement remain evolving areas