<![CDATA[Overlapping trademark and copyright protection enables a single logo to implicate two intellectual property regimes with different protected interests, infringement requirements, and remedial structures. The problem becomes more complex when a single unauthorized use of a logo forms the basis of both trademark and copyright claims, while each claim seeks damages arising from the same commercial transactions. This study examines the legal limits of cumulative claims and reconstructs a damages mechanism capable of preventing double recovery. It employs normative legal research through statutory, case, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The legal materials include Indonesian copyright and trademark legislation, the ASICS TIGER logo dispute, the comparative cases of Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Dragon Pacific International and Microsoft Corp. v. Computer Care Center, Inc., and scholarship concerning overlapping intellectual property rights and damages assessment. The findings demonstrate that cumulative causes of action do not automatically justify duplicate monetary recovery. Cumulative damages should only be available when copyright and trademark infringements produce legally distinct interests, independently traceable causal injuries, and economically separable loss components. Where the same lost sales, infringer revenue, licensing value, or market injury is counted under both regimes, the overlapping component must be deducted. This article proposes an Anti-Double Recovery Test and an overlap-deduction formula as a normative framework for Indonesian intellectual property damages.]]>
