ANALISA YURIDIS KEPASTIAN HUKUM DALAM PUTUSAN HAKIM TERHADAP SENGKETA MEREK ANTARA PS GLOW DAN MS GLOW (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR 2/PDT.SUS.HKI/MEREK/2022/PN.NIAGA SBY DAN PUTUSAN NOMOR 2/PDT.SUS.HKI/MEREK/2022/PN.NIAGA MDN)
Total View This Week0
Total View This Week0
Institusion
Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji
Author
ENTASARI, DINI
Arjuna, Hendra
Nuraini, Lia
Arjuna, Hendra
Nuraini, Lia
Subject
340 Law/Ilmu Hukum
Datestamp
2023-01-30 14:14:59
Abstract :
Brand disputes are often triggered by imitation of a brand. Certainty is the protection of justice. Violations of well-known registered marks have often occurred in Indonesia so that legal protection for well-known mark owners is often neglected. The purpose of this study is to find out how the juridical analysis of legal certainty in the Medan judge's decision Number 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek/2022/PN.Niaga Mdn and Judge Sby's Decision Number 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek//2022PN Niaga Sby . Normative research methods. Types of normative research with a statutory approach and decision studies. Case study research object. Research focus Analysis of judge's decision. Sources of legal materials are primary and secondary. MS research results. Glow For Cantik Skincare class 3 (Cosmetic Class) owned by Shandy Purnamasari was registered in 2016 and ends in 2026. Putra Siregar owns PS products. Glow just applied for 2021 registration with status (in progress). At the Medan Court, the Judge stated that MS. Glow is the only first product brand to be registered with the Directorate General of IP and PS. Glow has similarities in essence with MS.Glow. At the Surabaya Court, the judge rejected the statement because the product registered was different from the product brand marketed by Putra Siregar, stating that the MS.Glow product had similarities in principle to PS.Glow which was used based on Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Geographical Indication Marks. The conclusion of the Medan District Court judge in decision Number 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek/2022/PN.Niaga Mdn granted Shandy Purnamasari's lawsuit with the following considerations: The plaintiff is the sole registered owner
Brand disputes are often triggered by imitation of a brand. Certainty is the protection of justice. Violations of well-known registered marks have often occurred in Indonesia so that legal protection for well-known mark owners is often neglected. The purpose of this study is to find out how the juridical analysis of legal certainty in the Medan judge's decision Number 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek/2022/PN.Niaga Mdn and Judge Sby's Decision Number 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek//2022PN Niaga Sby . Normative research methods. Types of normative research with a statutory approach and decision studies. Case study research object. Research focus Analysis of judge's decision. Sources of legal materials are primary and secondary. MS research results. Glow For Cantik Skincare class 3 (Cosmetic Class) owned by Shandy Purnamasari was registered in 2016 and ends in 2026. Putra Siregar owns PS products. Glow just applied for 2021 registration with status (in progress). At the Medan Court, the Judge stated that MS. Glow is the only first product brand to be registered with the Directorate General of IP and PS. Glow has similarities in essence with MS.Glow. At the Surabaya Court, the judge rejected the statement because the product registered was different from the product brand marketed by Putra Siregar, stating that the MS.Glow product had similarities in principle to PS.Glow which was used based on Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Geographical Indication Marks. The conclusion of the Medan District Court judge in decision Number 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek/2022/PN.Niaga Mdn granted Shandy Purnamasari's lawsuit with the following considerations: The plaintiff is the sole registered owner
Download
book
BibTex
Latex, Jabref
cloud_download
Original Resource
url resource Institution
