Perlindungan hukum terhadap merek terkenal untuk barang dan jasa tidak sejenis dalam hukum merek Indonesia

Mulyati, Rahmi (2018) Perlindungan hukum terhadap merek terkenal untuk barang dan jasa tidak sejenis dalam hukum merek Indonesia. Doctoral thesis, Universitas Pelita Harapan.

[img] Text (Title)
title.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (204kB)
[img] Text (Abstract)
abstract.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (261kB)
[img] Text (ToC)
toc.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (256kB)
[img] Text (Chapter 1)
chapter 1.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (384kB)
[img] Text (Chapter 2)
chapter 2.pdf
Restricted to Registered users only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (1MB)
[img] Text (Chapter 3)
chapter 3.pdf
Restricted to Registered users only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (307kB)
[img] Text (Chapter 4)
chapter 4.pdf
Restricted to Registered users only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (1MB)
[img] Text (Chapter 5)
chapter 5.pdf
Restricted to Registered users only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (239kB)
[img] Text (Bibliography)
bibliography.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (265kB)

Abstract

The regulation of marks in Indonesia, the protection on well-known marks particularly for different kind of goods and/or services. Article 6 paragraph (2) of the Laws Number 15 of 2001 on Mark. Article 21 paragraph (1) letter c and paragraph (4) of the Laws Number 20 of 2016 on Mark and Geographical Indication are unclear and insufficient. It leads to different perception in the practices. Some judges consent to give protections but some others do not give the consent on protecting well-known marks particularly for different kind of goods and/or services. The different perception in interpreting particular articles lead to various kinds of court decision, thereby the legal certainty is questionable. The research aims at (1) analyzing the development of the concept on well-known marks for dissimilar goods and/or services; (2) discussing the implementation of regulations and laws on legal protection for well-known marks for dissimilar goods and/or services; and (3) formulating the regulation of laws on well-known marks for dissimilar goods in accordance with the principles of legal certainty, utility, and justice. The research results in several conclusions. First, there is various court decision of the implementation of Article 6 paragraph (2) of the Law Number 15 of 2001 on the protection for well-known mark for dissimilar goods and/or services. Second, Indonesia has ratified the TRIPs Agreement 1994 by the Law Number 7 of 1994. However, not all the provisions of the agreement were implemented in the national laws of marks. Third, the research on the laws and the court decision of Japan and Malaysia conclude several ideas. Japan provides legal protection for well-known mark for dissimilar goods and/or services through Japan Trademark Act No 127 of 1959, Article 4 paragraph (1) number XV and XIX on registered marks in Japan. Meanwhile, the unregistered well-known marks in Japan are protected by Japan Unfair Competition Prevention Act, Law No 47 of May 19, 1993 Article 2(1) (i) and (ii). Malaysia listed Article 6 bi Paris Convention and Article 16 of TRIPs Agreement in Article 14 paragraph (2) of Laws of Malaysia Act 175. The ideal concept of regulation of legal certainty and justice is the revision of Laws Number 20 of 2016 and the Minister Regulation Number 67 of 2016. 1. Amendment of Article 76 paragraph (1) of Laws Number 20 of 2016 (2).“The suit on the cancellation of Registered Marks can be proposed by the owner of the registered marks, prosecutor, foundation/institution in the consumer sector, and religious boards/institutions based on the reasons as referred to in Article 20 and/or Article 21.” 2. Article 21 paragraph (4) of Laws Number 20 of 2016 into (4).Further provisions on the rejection of the application for Marks as referred to in paragraph (1) letter a to letter c shall be regulated by the Government Regulation. 3. Article 19 paragraph (3) of the Minister Regulation Number 67 of 2016 into: (4).Particular provisions as referred to in paragraph (2) shall include: a. The existence of indication of relations between goods and/or services owned by the user of the Marks and the dissimilar goods and/or services owned by the Registered Well-known Marks which is confusing and misleading. b. The effect of the use of the marks harm the interest of the Owner of Registered Wellknown Marks. / Peraturan Pemerintah yang mengatur persyaratan tertentu sebagai persyaratan untuk menolak pendaftaran merek yang mempunyai persamaan dengan merek terkenal untuk barang dan/atau jasa tidak sejenis, diatur dalam Pasal 6 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2001tidak pernah diterbitkan. Dalam penerapannya menimbulkan perbedaan persepsi, sehingga terbit putusan yang berbeda dan tidak ada kepastian hukum. Dengan diundangkannya Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016, ketentuan yang sama diatur dalam Pasal 21 ayat (1) huruf c dan ayat (4). Persyaratan tertentu di atur dalam Pasal 19 ayat (3) Peraturan Menteri Nomor 67 Tahun 2016. Dalam praktik persyaratan tertentu yang diatur dalam ketentuan Peraturan Menteri juga tidak menuntun hakim dalam menentukan merek terkenal yang mana yang dapat dilindungi apabila terdapat persamaan dengan merek terdaftar milik pihak lain.Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk 1). Menganalisis perkembangan konsep mengenai merek terkenal untuk barang da/atau jasa tidak sejenis, 2). Membahas implementasi peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pelindungan hukum terhadap merek terkenal untuk barang dan/atau jas tidak sejenis di Indonesia dan 3) Merumuskan pengaturan pelindungan hukum merek terkenal untuk barang yang tidak sejenis sesuai dengan prinsip kepastian hukum, kemanfaatan dan keadilan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan terdapat putusan yang beragam terhadap penerapan Pasal 6 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2001. Indonesia telah meratifikasi TRIPs Agreement 1994, akan tetap Pasal 16 ayat (3) tidak diterapkan undang-undang merek nasional. Japan Trademark Act No. 127 of 1959 Pasal 4 ayat (1) angka XV menolak setiap pendaftaran merek yang kemungkinan akan menimbulkan kebingungan sehubungan dengan barang atau jasa tersebut berkaitan dengan bisnis orang lain. Malaysia mencantumkan Pasal 6 bis Paris convention dan Pasal 16 TRIPs Agreement dalam Pasal 14 ayat (2) Laws of Malaysia Act 175. Konsep pengaturan yang ideal terhadap pelindungan merek terkenal untuk barang dan/jasa tidak sejenis agar dapat mendorong kepastian hukum dan keadilan adalah merevisi beberapa ketentuan Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 dan Peraturan Menteri Nomor 67 Taun 2016 sebagai berikut: 1. Pasal Perubahan Pasal 76 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016, menjadi (1). “Gugatan pembatalan Merek Terdaftar dapat diajukan oleh pemilik merek terdaftar, jaksa, yayasan/lembaga di bidang konsumen, dan majelis/lembaga keagamaan berdasarkan alasan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 20 dan/atau Pasal 21”. 2. Pasal 21 ayat (4) menjadi Ketentuan lebih lanjut mengenai penolakan permohonan Merek sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf a sampai dengan huruf c diatur dengan Peraturan Pemerintah. 3. Pasal 19 ayat (3) Peraturan Menteri menjadi: (3). Persyaratan tertentu sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) meliputi: a. Sepanjang penggunaan merek yang bersangkutan untuk barang dan jasa tidak sejenis menunjukkan indikasi adanya hubungan antara barang dan/atau jasa tidak sejenis tersebut dengan barang dan/atau jasa milik pemilik terdaftar, yang menimbulkan kebingungan dan menyesatkan. dan b. Sepanjang penggunaan tersebut mengakibatkan kerugian terhadap kepentingan pemilik merek terdaftar tersebut.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Creators:
CreatorsNIMEmail
Mulyati, RahmiUNSPECIFIEDUNSPECIFIED
Subjects: K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions: University Subject > Current > Faculty/School - UPH Karawaci > Faculty of Law > Doctor of Law
Current > Faculty/School - UPH Karawaci > Faculty of Law > Doctor of Law
Depositing User: Users 15 not found.
Date Deposited: 06 Nov 2019 06:31
Last Modified: 06 Nov 2019 06:31
URI: http://repository.uph.edu/id/eprint/5353

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item