Disparitas Putusan Mengenai Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Pada Merek Predator (Studi Putusan Nomor 1146 K/Pdt.Sus-Hki/2020)

Muhammad Ali Masnun

doi:10.47268/sasi.v27i4.539

Disparitas Putusan Mengenai Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Pada Merek Predator (Studi Putusan Nomor 1146 K/Pdt.Sus-Hki/2020)

Muhammad Ali Masnun⁽¹⁾

(1) Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Hukum, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia

Corresponding Author

Abstract

The cases of trademark infringement on substantial similarity still relatively common in Indonesia. This article aims to analyze the basis for the judge's consideration in the decision Number 1146 K / Pdt.Sus-HKI / 2020. This is based on the disparity of Decision Number 69 / Pdt.Sus / Mark / 2019 / PN with Decision Number 1146 K / Pdt.Sus-HKI / 2020. This research uses doctrinal research using statute, case, and conceptual approaches. The results showed that the judges' basic considerations were not in accordance with regulations and several legal concepts. First, that the trademark protection system based on territorial territory and the first to file system principle should not be used as a basis for consideration. Second, that the two brands are basically similar because of the similarities in the dominant element and the similarity in sound or speech with the addition of the same class of goods. Third, the word "predator" cannot be categorized as a generic word, because the word predator has been added with a logo as a condition for a research, excluding generic brands. As a recommendation in deciding this matter, regarding the existence of bad faith, due to bad faith, a cancellation of a registered mark can be submitted indefinitely.

Keywords

Trademark; Similarity in appearance; Predator.

DOI

10.47268/sasi.v27i4.539

Published

2021-12-31

How To Cite

APA: Masnun, M.A. (2021). Disparitas Putusan Mengenai Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Pada Merek Predator (Studi Putusan Nomor 1146 K/Pdt.Sus-Hki/2020). SASI, 27(4), 463 - 474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v27i4.539.

IEEE: M.A. Masnun, "Disparitas Putusan Mengenai Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Pada Merek Predator (Studi Putusan Nomor 1146 K/Pdt.Sus-Hki/2020)", SASI, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 463 - 474, Dec. 2021. Accessed on: Jun. 27, 2024. [Online]. Available DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v27i4.539

Harvard: Masnun, M.A., (2021). "Disparitas Putusan Mengenai Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Pada Merek Predator (Studi Putusan Nomor 1146 K/Pdt.Sus-Hki/2020)". SASI, Volume 27(4), pp. 463 - 474. [Online]. Available DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v27i4.539 (Accessed on: 27 June 2024)

Chicago: Masnun, Muhammad Ali. "Disparitas Putusan Mengenai Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Pada Merek Predator (Studi Putusan Nomor 1146 K/Pdt.Sus-Hki/2020)." SASI 27, no. 4 (November 27, 2021): 463 - 474. Accessed June 27, 2024. doi:10.47268/sasi.v27i4.539

Vancouver: Masnun MA. Disparitas Putusan Mengenai Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Pada Merek Predator (Studi Putusan Nomor 1146 K/Pdt.Sus-Hki/2020). SASI [Internet]. 2021 Dec 31 [cited 2024 Jun 27];27(4):463 - 474. Available from: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v27i4.539

MLA 8th: Masnun, Muhammad Ali. "Disparitas Putusan Mengenai Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Pada Merek Predator (Studi Putusan Nomor 1146 K/Pdt.Sus-Hki/2020)." SASI, vol. 27, no. 4, 27 Nov. 2021, pp. 463 - 474, doi:10.47268/sasi.v27i4.539. Accessed 27 Jun. 2024.

BibTeX:

@article{SASI539,
		author = {Muhammad Masnun},
		title = {Disparitas Putusan Mengenai Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Pada Merek Predator (Studi Putusan Nomor 1146 K/Pdt.Sus-Hki/2020)},
		journal = {SASI},
		volume = {27},
		number = {4},
		year = {2021},
		keywords = {Trademark; Similarity in appearance; Predator.},
		abstract = {The cases of trademark infringement on substantial similarity still relatively common in Indonesia. This article aims to analyze the basis for the judge's consideration in the decision Number 1146 K / Pdt.Sus-HKI / 2020. This is based on the disparity of Decision Number 69 / Pdt.Sus / Mark / 2019 / PN with Decision Number 1146 K / Pdt.Sus-HKI / 2020. This research uses doctrinal research using statute, case, and conceptual approaches. The results showed that the judges' basic considerations were not in accordance with regulations and several legal concepts. First, that the trademark protection system based on territorial territory and the first to file system principle should not be used as a basis for consideration. Second, that the two brands are basically similar because of the similarities in the dominant element and the similarity in sound or speech with the addition of the same class of goods. Third, the word "predator" cannot be categorized as a generic word, because the word predator has been added with a logo as a condition for a research, excluding generic brands. As a recommendation in deciding this matter, regarding the existence of bad faith, due to bad faith, a cancellation of a registered mark can be submitted indefinitely.},
				issn = {2614-2961},		pages = {463--474}			doi = {10.47268/sasi.v27i4.539},
				url = {https://fhukum.unpatti.ac.id/jurnal/sasi/article/view/539}
		}

RefWorks:

Citation format: Download Citation:

Jurnal

[1] Betlehn, A., & Samosir, P. O. (2018). Upaya Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Merek Industri UMKM Di Indonesia. Law and Justice, 3(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.23917/laj.v3i1.6080

[2] Christiangie, K., Santoso, B., & Saptono, H. (2019). Pedoman Penentuan Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Oleh Lembaga Peradilan Di Indonesia (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 409 K/Pdt. Sus-HKI/2015). Diponegoro Law Journal, 8(3), 2117-2130.

[3] Hidayati, N. (2011). Perlindungan Hukum pada Merek yang Terdaftar. Ragam Jurnal Pengembangan Humaniora, 11(3), 174-181.

[4] Indra, I., & Andini, P. (2021, April). Pendampingan Pendaftaran Merek Dagang Gold Hill Di Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Intelektual. In ConCEPt-Conference on Community Engagement Project (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 418-424).

[5] Kalalo, P. F. (2021). Gugatan Pemilik Merek Terdaftar Terhadap Pihak Lain Apabila Tanpa Hak Menggunakan Merek Barang Yang Mempunyai Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Atau Keseluruhannya. LEX PRIVATUM, 9(3), 119-129.

[6] Labetubun, M. A. H. (2017). "The Legal Review of The Rights of Foreign Brands Onweaknesses of First To Fole Registration Principles In Indonesia," in International Conference : Intellectual Property and Potential Resources for Public Welfare (Mataram: Faculty of Law, University of Mataram in Cooperation with Association of Intellectual Property Lecturer of Indonesia), 213-27.

[7] Labetubun, M. A. H., Pariela, M. V. G. (2020). Controlling of Imported or Exported Goods Related to Brand Protection By Customs, UNTAG Law Review, 4(1), 20-33, https://doi.org/10.36356/ulrev.v4i1.1522.
https://doi.org/10.36356/ulrev.v4i1.1522

[8] Masnun, M. A. (2019). Reorientasi Pengaturan Pemberdayaan Hukum Usaha Mikro Kecil Menengah Melalui Hak Atas Merek Kolektif. Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika, 3(2), 217-234.
https://doi.org/10.25072/jwy.v3i2.248

[9] Pane, O. B. M., & Rini, E. S. (2011). Pengaruh Brand Equity Flash Disk Merek KingstonTerhadap Keputusan Pembelian Pada Mahasiswa Amik Mbp Medan. Jurnal Ekonom, 14(3), 115-126.

[10] Sanib, S. S. (2019). Ketentuan-ketentuan TRIPS-Plus dalam Kerangka Perjanjian Perdagangan Bebas. Halu Oleo Law Review, 3(1), 50-66.
https://doi.org/10.33561/holrev.v3i1.6016

[11] Wijaya, E. L. F. (2020). Perlindungan Hukum Konsumen Atas Kesamaan Bunyi Merek Terhadap Barang Yang Tidak Sejenis. JCH (Jurnal Cendekia Hukum), 5(2), 185-197.
https://doi.org/10.33760/jch.v5i2.187

[12] Wijaya, K., & Neltje, J. (2020). Perlindungan Hukum Merek Terkenal (Kasus Sengketa Merek Pierre Cardin Perancis Vs Indonesia). Era Hukum-Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Hukum, 18(1), 192-216.

Buku

[13] Amiruddin., & Asikin, Z. (2016). Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

[14] Black, H. C. (1999). Black's Law Dictionary: Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American. Minnesota: West Group.

[15] Indriyanto, A., & Yusnita, I. M. (2017). Aspek Hukum Pendaftaran Merek. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.

[16] Jened, R. (2015). Hukum Merek Dalam Era Global Dan Integrasi Ekonomi. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.

[17] Margono, S., & Hadi, L. (2002). Pembaharuan Perlindungan Hukum Merek. Jakarat: Novindo Pustaka Mandiri..

[18] Margono, S. (2010). Aspek Hukum Komersialisasi Aset Intelektual. Bandung: Nuansa Aulia.

[19] Mertokusumo, S. (2007). Penemuan Hukum: Sebuah Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty.

[20] Nofli. (2020). Modul Kekayaan Intelektual Lanjutan Bidang Merek Dan Indikasi Geografis. Jakarta: Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Intelektual.

[21] Saidin, OK. (2007). Aspek Hukum Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (Intellectual Property Rights). Jakarta: Rajagrafindo Persada.

[22] Simamora, B. (2001). Memenangkan Pasar Dengan Pemasaran Efektif Dan Profitabel. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

[23] Sutiyoso, B. (2015). Metode Penemuan Hukum (Upaya Mewujudkan Hukum Yang Pasti Dan Berkeadilan). Yogyakarta: UII Press.

Online/World Wide Web, Skripsi dll

[24] Hutasuhut. P. (2018). Pelindungan Hukum Bagi Merek Terdaftar Yang Menjadi Nama Generik Ditinjau Dari Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 (Skripsi: Universitas Padjajaran).

[25] Mahkamah Agung. (2020). "Salinan Putusan 1146 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2020".