Akibat Hukum Dari Pemakaian Merek Yang Memiliki Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Dalam Putusan Nomor 160K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2019 Ditinjau Dari Undang - Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Merek Dan Indikasi Geografis = Legal implications of using substantially similar trademark(s) in decision number 160k/pdr.Sus-hki/2019 according to law number 20 of 2016 regarding trademark and geographic indications

Wilis, Aldo Salmona (2019) Akibat Hukum Dari Pemakaian Merek Yang Memiliki Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Dalam Putusan Nomor 160K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2019 Ditinjau Dari Undang - Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Merek Dan Indikasi Geografis = Legal implications of using substantially similar trademark(s) in decision number 160k/pdr.Sus-hki/2019 according to law number 20 of 2016 regarding trademark and geographic indications. Bachelor thesis, Universitas Pelita Harapan.

	Text (Tittle) Tittle.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (4MB)
Preview	Text (Abstract) Abstract.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (175kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (ToC) ToC.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB) | Preview
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 (3MB)
	Text (Chapter3) Chapter3.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB)
	Text (Chapter4) Chapter4.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (3MB)
	Text (Chapter5) Chapter5.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (457kB)
Preview	Text (Bibliography) Bibiliography.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (534kB) | Preview
	Text (Appendices) Appendices.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB)

Abstract

The definition of ‘trademark’ according to Article 1 clause (1) of Law Number 20 of 2016 regarding Trademark and Geographic Indications is “a symbol that can be displayed graphically consisting of images, logos, name, words, letters, and colours in forms of 2 (two) dimensions and/or 3 (three) dimensions, sounds, holograms, or a combination of 2 (two) or more of such elements used for the purpose of distinguishing goods and/or services produced by a person or legal entities in trading of goods and services.” The author conducts a study regarding the substantial similarities the “Novec 1230” trademark owned by the Defendant/Cassation Applicant with the “NOVEC” trademark owned by the Plaintiff/Cassation Respondent. The study shows that whether or not a trademark can be determined as having a substantial similarity hinges on several particular rules, which are: the existence of a dominant element in both trademarks which gives off the impression that there is a resemblance in shape, form, writing, or a combination of those elements, as well as a similarity of how words in the trademarks are pronounced. To discern whether a trademark’s registration can be accepted, a substantive examination must be carried out by the Directorate-General of Intellectual Properties; this is carried out because before a trademark can be accepted, a substantial examination must be done by an examination team from the Directorate-General of Intellectual Properties.

Actions (login required)

View Item