TINDAKAN PEMBONCENGAN MEREK TERHADAP
SENGKETA MEREK DAGANG MS GLOW DAN PS GLOW
(Studi Kasus PN Niaga Surabaya
Nomer 2/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/PN Niaga Sby)
Total View This Week0
Total View This Week0
Institusion
Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang
Author
wijaya, rizky hadi
Subject
K Law (General)
Datestamp
2023-11-20 05:23:06
Abstract :
The Trademark Law does not directly explain the passing off, but it can be interpreted with the provisions contained in Article 21 of the Trademark Law. In the field, there are still brands with almost the same names as well as the way they are pronounced, so what registered trademark holders can do is to protect their rights from acts of passing off which can lead to public misleading, such as the case between Ms. Glow and PS. Glow. Based on the above, this paper raises the formulation of the problem, How is the judge's consideration regarding the passing off action between the MS GLOW and PS GLOW trademarks at the Surabaya Commercial Court in decision No.2/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/PN Niaga Sby? And what about the Executor of the Supreme Court Decision Number 161 K/Pdt.Sus- HKI/2023. Then the author of this paper uses normative juridical methods with statutory approaches and conceptual approaches. The legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials. From the results of the research carried out, it can be concluded that the judge's considerations regarding the passing off of the MS GLOW and PS GLOW trade at the Surabaya Commercial Court in decision No.2/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/PN Niaga Sby decided in favor of the plaintiff on behalf of PS Glow. And the implementation of the judge's sentence was to give MS Glow a fine of 38 billion for passing off PS Glow
The Trademark Law does not directly explain the passing off, but it can be interpreted with the provisions contained in Article 21 of the Trademark Law. In the field, there are still brands with almost the same names as well as the way they are pronounced, so what registered trademark holders can do is to protect their rights from acts of passing off which can lead to public misleading, such as the case between Ms. Glow and PS. Glow. Based on the above, this paper raises the formulation of the problem, How is the judge's consideration regarding the passing off action between the MS GLOW and PS GLOW trademarks at the Surabaya Commercial Court in decision No.2/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/PN Niaga Sby? And what about the Executor of the Supreme Court Decision Number 161 K/Pdt.Sus- HKI/2023. Then the author of this paper uses normative juridical methods with statutory approaches and conceptual approaches. The legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials. From the results of the research carried out, it can be concluded that the judge's considerations regarding the passing off of the MS GLOW and PS GLOW trade at the Surabaya Commercial Court in decision No.2/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/PN Niaga Sby decided in favor of the plaintiff on behalf of PS Glow. And the implementation of the judge's sentence was to give MS Glow a fine of 38 billion for passing off PS Glow
Download
book
BibTex
Latex, Jabref
cloud_download
Original Resource
url resource Institution
