Analisis kasus penghapusan merek Cristaline Perancis oleh Crystalline Indonesia (studi kasus putusan peninjauan kembali nomor 47 pk/ pdt.sus-hki/2020)

Dominica, Emelia (2021) Analisis kasus penghapusan merek Cristaline Perancis oleh Crystalline Indonesia (studi kasus putusan peninjauan kembali nomor 47 pk/ pdt.sus-hki/2020). Bachelor thesis, Universitas Pelita Harapan.

	Text (Title) Title.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (878kB)
Preview	Text (Abstract) Abstract.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (234kB) | Preview
	Text (ToC) ToC.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (977kB)
Preview	Text (Chapter1) Chapter1.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB) | Preview
	Text (Chapter2) Chapter2.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (2MB)
	Text (Chapter3) Chapter3.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (862kB)
	Text (Chapter4) Chapter4.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (4MB)
	Text (Chapter5) Chapter5.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (387kB)
Preview	Text (Bibliography) Bibliography.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (592kB) | Preview
	Text (Appendices) Appendices.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (6MB)

Abstract

Tujuan penelitian ini diharapkan mengetahui dapat dilakukannya penghapusan merek karena tidak digunakan atau diperdagangkan oleh pihak ketiga dan akibat hukum terhadap penghapusan merek karena tidak digunakan atau diperdagangkan oleh pihak ketiga dalam Putusan Peninjauan Kembali Nomor 47 PK/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2020. Metode Penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian yuridis normatif, dalam penelitian ini menggunakan pengumpulan data kepustakawan dan pendekatan penelitian secara pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus peninjauan putusan, penelitian ini menggunakan analisis data kualitiatif. Hasil Penelitian dalam penelitian ini membahas tentang penghapusan merek dapat dilakukan atas prakarsa pihak ketiga dalam karena tidak digunakan terhadap Putusan Nomor 47 PK/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2020. Crystalline Indonesia dapat mengajukan gugatan penghapusan merek oleh pihak ketiga berdasarkan Pasal 74 UU No. 20 tahun 2016. Crystalline Indonesia memiliki kapasitas hukum dalam mengajukan guguatan penghapusan merek dari segi kepentingan yaitu ingin permohonan pendaftaran merek Crystalline diterima dan Crystalline Indonesia mengajukan gugatan dengan itikad baik yaitu tidak memiliki niat untuk meniru dan membonceng Merek Cristaline. Akibat hukum terhadap putusan Nomor 47 PK/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2020 dalam pengajuan penghapusan merek oleh gugatan pihak ketiga dinyatakan ditolak seluruhnya sehingga timbulnya dinilai tidak sesuai dengan penerapan Pasal 74 yang terbukti Merek Cristaline tidak menggunakan dan memperdagangkan mereknya berdasarkan bukti hasil survei dan tidak mendapatkan izin edar oleh BPOM. Pertimbangan hakim mengenai Merek Cristaline yang masih terdaftar di negara asal dan beberapa negara lain sehingga diputusakan bahwa merek masih digunakan dinilai tidak sesuai dengan sistem hukum perlindungan merek yang bersifat teritorial. Penerapan hukum permohonan perpanjangan jangka waktu perlindungan merek terdaftar dengan hanya menyertakan Surat Pernyataan bahwa merek masih digunkan tanpa dokumen pendukung dinilai tidak memiliki bukti konkret bahwa faktanya merek tersebut masih digunakan atau tidak./The purpose of this research is to find out whether trademarks may be cancelled for non-used by a third party and the legal consequences of cancelling trademarks because of non-use by a third party in Court Decision Number 47 PK /Pdt.Sus-HKI/2020./ Research method used in this study uses normative juridical research, in this study uses librarian data collection and research approaches with a statue approach and a case review approach to decisions, this study uses qualitative data analysis. Research results of this study discuss about removal trademark can be carried out on the initiative of third parties because of non-used against in Case Judicial Number 47 PK/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2020. Crystalline Indonesia could perform lawsuit for trademark removal as a third party based on Article 74 of Law No. 20 of 2016. Crystalline Indonesia has legal capacity to file a lawsuit for the removal trademark from their materiality, namely for their application on registering for Crystalline trademark to be accepted and Crystalline Indonesia filed a lawsuit based in good faith, they have no intention to imitate and attend Cristaline Brand. The legal consequences of the decision Number 47 PK/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2020 in the application for the removal of the mark by a thirdparty lawsuit was declared to be completely rejected so that the occurrence was judged not to be in accordance with the application of Article 74 which proved that the Cristaline trademark did not use their trademark based on the evidence from the survey and did not obtain any permit to distribute their products by BPOM. The judge's considerations regarding the Cristaline trademark which is still registered in their origin country and several other countries, so it was decided that the mark is still being used is considered not in accordance with the legal system of territorial trademark protection. The application of the law on the application for an extension of the period of protection of a registered mark by only attaching a statement that the mark is still being used without supporting documents is considered to have no concrete evidence that the fact is that the mark is still being used or not.

Actions (login required)

View Item