Juridical analysis of trademark registration with bad faith in law number 20 of 2016 (Study of Supreme Court Verdict 242 K/Pdt. Sus-HKI/2022)

Barkatyan, Janitra (2022) Juridical analysis of trademark registration with bad faith in law number 20 of 2016 (Study of Supreme Court Verdict 242 K/Pdt. Sus-HKI/2022). Bachelor thesis, Universitas Pelita Harapan.

Preview	Text (Title) Title.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (60kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (Abstract) Abstract.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (185kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (ToC) ToC.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (264kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (Chapter1) Chapter1.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (936kB) | Preview
	Text (Chapter2) Chapter2.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB)
	Text (Chapter3) Chapter3.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (507kB)
	Text (Chapter5) Chapter4.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB)
	Text (Chapter5) Chapter5.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (117kB)
Preview	Text (Bibliography) Bibliography.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (403kB) | Preview
	Text (Appendices) Appendices.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB)

Abstract

Penggugat merupakan pemilik merek “Arra” yang telah mendaftarkan mereknya lebih dahulu dibandingkan Tergugat. Sebelumnya Tergugat telah mendaftarkan merek dengan nama “Coco Arra”. Penggugat menggugat Tergugat karena dianggap merek “Coco Arra” memiliki persamaan pada pokoknya dengan merek “Arra”. Pendaftaran merek yang dilakukan oleh Tergugat dianggap beritikad tidak baik karena dengan sengaja meniru merek milik Penggugat dan dapat mengecoh konsumen. Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Nomor 70/Pdt.Sus- HKI/Merek/2019/PN Niaga.Jkt.Pst, Majelis Hakim menyatakan bahwa merek milik Tergugat memiliki unsur pembeda. Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri menolak gugatan Penggugat. Hal tersebut berbeda dengan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 242 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2022. Majelis Hakim Mahkamah Agung menyatakan merek milik Tergugat memiliki persamaan pada pokoknya dengan merek milik Penggugat. Majelis Hakim Mahkamah Agung menyatakan Tergugat mendaftarkan mereknya dengan itikad tidak baik dan membatalkan pendaftaran merek “Coco Arra” milik Tergugat. Penulis akan menganalisis pengaturan pendaftaran merek dengan itikad tidak baik dan membandingkan pertimbangan hakim dalam kedua putusan tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian hukumnormatif. Jenis data yang digunakan adalah bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier. Metode pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah studi pustaka dan wawancara narasumber. Jenis pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan undang-undang dan pendekatan kasus. Sifat analisis data adalah kualitatif. Hasil: Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 telah mengatur pendaftaran dengan itikad dengan baik. Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri tidak menerapkan hukum dengan tepat. Majelis Hakim Mahkamah Agung telah menerapkan hukum dengan tepat./ The Plaintiff is the owner of the trademark "Arra" which has registered its trademark earlier than the Defendant. Previously, the Defendant had registered a trademark under the name "Coco Arra". The Plaintiff sued the Defendant because it was considered that the brand "Coco Arra" had similarities in principle to the brand "Arra". The trademark registration carried out by the Defendant was considered to be in bad faith because it deliberately imitated the Plaintiff's trademark and could mislead consumers. In the District Court verdict Number 70/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2019/PN Niaga.Jkt.Pst, the Panel of Judges stated that the Defendant's trademark had a distinguishing element. The Panel of Judges at the District Court rejected the Plaintiff's claim. This is different from the Supreme Court Verdict Number 242 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2022. The Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court stated that the Defendant's trademark has similarities in principle tothe Plaintiff's trademark. The Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court stated that the Defendant registered his mark in bad faith and canceled the registration of the Defendant's “Coco Arra” mark. The author will analyze the regulation of trademark registration in bad faith and compare the judge's considerations in the two decisions. This study uses normative legal research. The type of data used is primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. The data collection method used was literature study and resource interviews. The type of approach used in this study is the statutory approach and the case approach. The nature of data analysis is qualitative. Result: Law Number 20 of 2016 has regulated registration in good faith. The Panel of Judges of the District Court did not apply the law properly. The Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court has applied the law appropriately.

Actions (login required)

View Item