Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"This book was originally published as a monograph in the International encyclopedia of laws/​competition law"

"Tidak adanya kriteria yang komprehensif dalam Peraturan Pelaksanaan atas Undang-Undang Merek menyebabkan hakim tidak memiliki pilihan selain memutuskan sebuah tuntutan hukum sebagai Gugatan Tidak Dapat Diterima. Hal ini menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum berkaitan dengan perlindungan merek terkenal. Hal ini menunjukkan betapa pentingnya penerbitan ketentuan yang menetapkan kriteria merek terkenal sebagai pedoman dalam menentukan merek terkenal di sebuah kasus. Mengingat Keputusan Menteri Kehakiman dan Hak Asasi Manusia No. 67 Tahun 2016 yang baru dikeluarkan sebagai peraturan pelaksanaan yang mengandung kriteria merek terkenal di Indonesia, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan dan menganalisis kriteria merek terkenal dengan Undang-Undang Merek yang sebelumnya. Analisisnya akan menjelaskan apakah ini akan menjadi solusi yang efisien untuk mengatasi isu ketidakpastian hukum tersebut. Kemudian, situasi serupa terjadi di Amerika Serikat sebagaimana tidak ada hukum atau peraturan tertulis yang mengatur kriteria merek terkenal. Penelitian ini selanjutnya membahas bagaimana Amerika Serikat mengatur kriteria merek terkenal tanpa hukum tertulis, namun berdasarkan hukum putusan hakim preseden kasus. Pada akhirnya penilitian ini juga akan menjelaskan bagaimana kedua negara berbeda dalam menentukan kriteria tanda terkenal namun tetap memenuhi kewajiban mereka sebagai negara anggota. Persamaan dan perbedaan akan dianalisa dalam bentuk format, substansi dan sifat kriteria tanda terkenal. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa kedua Negara telah memenuhi kewajibannya sebagai Negara anggota dengan menerapkan standar serupa dengan Joint Recommendation, walaupun pendekatannya berbeda.

---

The absence of comprehensive criteria in an implementing regulation of Mark Law led to judges having no choice but to decide ldquo Lawsuit Cannot be Accepted. rdquo This created legal uncertainty with regards to well known mark protection. This shows how significant the issuance of provisions regulating criteria of well known mark as a guideline. In light of the newly issued Ministerial Decree of Justice and Human Right No. 67 Year 2016 as implementing regulation containing criteria of well known mark in Indonesia, this research aims to compare and analyze such criteria with previous mark laws. An analysis would project whether this will be the efficient solution towards the issue of legal uncertainty. Similar situation occurs in United States of America whereby there is no written law or regulations regulating criteria of well known mark. This research further discusses how the United States regulate the criteria without written law but with case law case precedents. It will also eventually compare how the two countries differ in determining well known mark criteria but still fulfill their obligations as member states. Similarities and differences will be found in terms of the format, substance and nature of well known mark criteria. The research concludes that both countries have fulfilled their obligations as member states by applying similar standard as the Joint Recommendation, although their approach is different."

"Doktrin Likelihood of Confusion sebagai doktrin yang terkandung dalam Article 16 (1) TRIPs Agreement telah menjadi dasar pertimbangan Majelis Hakim di beberapa negara seperti Amerika Serikat dan Uni Eropa dalam menentukan suatu pelanggaran merek. Namun demikian, Doktrin Likelihood of Confusion saat ini belum dianut oleh Indonesia dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis. Meski begitu, beberapa Majelis Hakim dalam menyelesaikan sengketa merek di Indonesia telah berusaha memberikan pertimbangan terkait Likelihood of Confusion seperti Pada Putusan Nomor 30/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst antara pemilik merek “FORMULA STRONG” melawan pemilik merek “PEPSODENT STRONG 12 JAM” serta pada Putusan Nomor 10/PDT.SUS.MEREK/2020/PN.NIAGAJKT.PST. antara merek “PUMA” melawan merek “PUMADA”. Untuk itu, penelitian ini akan menganalisis terkait penerapan Doktrin Likelihood of Confusion dalam penyelesaian sengketa merek di Indonesia, serta membandingkannya dengan pengaturan dan penerapannya di Amerika Serikat dan Uni Eropa. Adapun penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode yuridis-normatif dengan data yang diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan. Kesimpulan yang dapat diambil adalah Majelis Hakim dalam menerapkan Doktrin Likelihood of Confusion di Indonesia masih bersandar kembali dengan hanya menitikberatkan pada ada atau tidaknya persamaan pada pokoknya atau keseluruhannya antara kedua merek. Padahal, adanya kesamaan antara kedua merek tidak serta merta menimbulkan kebingungan bagi konsumen, yang berujung pada kerugian bagi pemilik merek. Kedua merek juga tetap dapat dibedakan satu sama lain, dan fungsi utama merek sebagai daya pembeda masih terpenuhi. Oleh karenanya, Indonesia diharapkan dapat memperhatikan syarat Likelihood of Confusion dalam penentuan pelanggaran merek dengan cara merumuskannya ke dalam Undang-Undang ataupun menyatukan pemahaman penegak hukum dalam memberikan pertimbangan hukum guna mewujudkan keadilan dalam perlindungan hak atas merek.

---

The doctrine of Likelihood of Confusion as a doctrine contained in Article 16 (1) of the TRIPs Agreement has become the basis for consideration by the Panel of Judges in several countries such as the United States and the European Union in determining a trademark infringement. However, the Likelihood of Confusion doctrine is currently not adopted by Indonesia in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications. Even so, several Panel of Judges in resolving trademark disputes in Indonesia have tried to provide considerations related to Likelihood of Confusion such as in Decision Number 30/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst between the owner of the trademark of "FORMULA STRONG" against owner of the trademark of "PEPSODENT STRONG 12 HOURS" as well as in Decision Number 10/PDT.SUS.MEREK/2020/PN.NIAGAJKT.PST. between the trademark “PUMA” against the trademark “PUMADA”. For this reason, this study will analyze the application of the Likelihood of Confusion Doctrine in the trademark disputes resolution in Indonesia, and compare it with the regulation and implementation in the United States and the European Union. This research was conducted using a juridical-normative method with data obtained through a literature study. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the Panel of Judges in implementing the Likelihood of Confusion Doctrine in Indonesia still relies on and by only focusing on whether or not there are similarities in substance or in its entirety between the two trademarks. In fact, the similarities between the two trademarks do not necessarily cause consumers confusion, which leads to the trademark owner’s loss. The two trademarks can also still be distinguished from one another, and the main function of the trademark to distinguish goods and/or services is still fulfilled. Therefore, Indonesia is expected to be able to pay attention to the terms of Likelihood of Confusion in determining trademark infringement by formulating it into the law or uniting the understanding of law enforcer in providing legal considerations in order to realize justice in the protection of trademark rights."

"The nature of a trademark ; Trademark defined ; The legal underpinnings of trademarks ; Trademarks, brands, and the products and services they represent -- Valuation basics ; The business enterprise ; Valuation principles ; Property and rights to property ; Premise of value ; Valuation methods -- Using financial information ; Financial reporting ; Financial statements and value: disaggregating S&R?s assets ; Tax issues -- Trademark valuation ; Cost method ; Estimating reproduction and replacement cost ; Using the cost method for trademarks ; Market method ; Using the market method for trademarks ; Income method ; Using the income method for trademarks -- Trademark economic benefit ; Future economic benefit ; Quantifying economic benefit ; Direct techniques ; Indirect techniques -- Income method: economic life and risk ; Defining economic life ; Trademark economic life and pattern ; Survivor curves and studies of historical life ; Forecasting growth ; S-curves in general ; Elements of risk.The income method: putting it all together ; Trademark valuation by residual ; Multiple exploitation scenarios ; Valuation based on income allocation -- Trademark licensing economics ; Licensing economics ; Some general thoughts ; Royalty quantification ; Quantification techniques ; Scoring and rating techniques ; Discounted cash flow model ; Dividing the economic benefit ; Another analytical technique ; Rules of thumb -- Quantification of harm in trademeark enforcement cases ; Civil trademark enforcement actions ; Monetary recovery in civil actions ; Enhancement of monetary recovery ; Valuing counterfeits for purposes of criminal sentencing -- Special trademark valuation situations ; Trademarks in finance ; Trademarks in bankruptcy ; Valuation directions ; Trademarks and ad valorem taxes -- Global trademark issues ; Trademark holding companies ; The scourge of trademark trolls -- International valuation standards ; Counterfeiting: a worldwide contagion ; Political/investment risk."

"Contents this book are Introduction to the law of intellectual property and unfair competition -- Interference with precontractual and non-contractual relations -- Interference with contractual relations -- Use of similar trademarks and trade names -- Product substitution or alteration -- Appropriation of publicly disclosed intangible assets -- Appropriation of trade secrets and ideas -- Injurious promotional practices -- Injurious pricing practices."