Article Sidebar

Submitted
March 6, 2018
Published
April 24, 2019
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1067 Download : 3173

Main Article Content

Abstract

Theuse  of  well-known  brands  without  any  license,  in  practice,  often  intentionally  or  unintentionally occurs that not only leads violations but also confusion for the public. The use of a brand without any license -but  not  creating  any  public  confusion -is referred  to  as  brand  dilution.  This  article  aims  to examine the brand dilution case occurred in Indonesia and Thailand by concerning with two issues: first, to  study  the  case  of  IKEA  vs.  IKEMA  occurred  in  Indonesia  and  the  case  of  STARBUCKS  vs. STARBUNG inThailand including in the brand dilution. Second, to study the protection of well-known brands from brand dilution in Indonesia and Thailand. The research used was normative juridical method by means of the statute approach, case approach, analytical approach and comparative approach. The results of this study indicated that first the case of IKEA vs. IKEMA occurred in Indonesia and the case of STARBUCKS vs. STARBUNG is categorized as the brand dilution in consideration to the brand use that has a similarity to well-known brands. Though it has a different class of goods and/or services, it can  eliminate  the  uniqueness  of  the  famous  brand.  Second,  both  Indonesia  and  Thailand  have  not specifically regulated the brand dilution. Indonesia is only based on the overall protection on equality and/or equality in principle, while Thailand is only based protection on confusion.

Keywords

Brand brand dilution brand violation

Article Details

How to Cite
Permata, R. R., safiranita, tasya safiranita, & Utama, B. (2019). Tinjauan Kasus Tentang Dilusi Merek Di Indonesia Dan Thailand. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 26(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol26.iss1.art1
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Buku
  2. Black, Henry Campbell, Black’s Law Dictionary Centennial Sixth Edition, St. Paul, Minn, West Publishing co., 1990.
  3. Jened, Rahmi, Hukum merek (Trademark Law) Dalam Era Global dan Integrasi Ekonomi, Prenadamedia Group, Jakarta, 2015.
  4. Lindsey, Tim (ed.), Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Suatu Pengantar, P.T. Alumni, Bandung, 2013.
  5. Purba, Achmad Zen, Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Pasca TRIPs, Alumni, Bandung, 2005.
  6. Soekanto, Soerjono dan Sri Mamudji, Penelitian Hukum Normatif; Suatu Tinjauan Singkat, Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta, 2011.
  7. Jurnal
  8. Beebe, Barton, “Search and Persuasion in Trademark Law”, Michigan Law Review, Volume 103, Issue 8, 2005.
  9. _______, “The Suppressed Misappropriation Origins of Trademark Antidilution Law: the Landgericht Elberfeld’s Odol Opinion and Frank Schecter’s The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection,” NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 13-36, 2013.
  10. Bone, Robert G., “Schecter’s Ideas In Historical Context and Dilution Rocky Road”, Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 24, Issue 3, 2008.
  11. Bradford, Laura R., “Emotion, Dilution, and the Trademark Consumer”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Volume 23, Issue 4 Fall, 2008.
  12. Derenberg, Walter J., “The Problem of Trademark Dilution and the Antidilution Statutes”, California Law Review Volume 44, Issue 3, 1956.
  13. Ewelukwa, Uche U., “Comparative Trademark Law: Fair Use Defense in The United States and Europe-The Changin Landscape of Trademark Law”, Widener Law Review, volume 13, 2006.
  14. Frymark, Julie C., "Trademark Dilution: A Proposal to Stop the Infection from Spreading", Valparaiso University Law Review, Volume 38, 2003.
  15. Kim, Paul Edward, "Preventing Dilution of The Federal Trademark Dilution Act: Why The FTDA Requires Actual Economic Harm", University of Pennyslvania Law Review, Volume 150, No. 2, 2011.
  16. Rafianti, Laina dan Amirulloh, M., “Perlindungan merek Terkenal Di Indonesia Berdasarkan Ketentuan Hukum Internasional Dibandingkan Dengan Trademark Dilution Revision Act Of 2006 Amerika Serikat”, Laporan Penelitian Fakultas Hukum Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, 2008.
  17. Schecter, Frank I., “The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection”, Harvard Law Review, Volume 40, No. 6, April 1927.
  18. Wimonkunarak, Sathita, “The Introduction of Trademark Dilution: The Review of Dilution Concept in ASEAN”, Thailand Law Journal 2014 Spring Issue 1, Volume 17, 2014.
  19. Peraturan Perundang-Undangan
  20. Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2001 Tentang Merek, Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2001 Nomor 110, Tambahan Lembaran Negara RI Nomor 4131.
  21. Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Merek Dan Indikasi Geografis, Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2016 Nomor 252, Tambahan Lembaran Negara RI Tahun 2016 Nomor 252.
  22. Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia Nomor 67 Tahun 2016 Tentang Pendaftaran Merek, Berita Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2016 Nomor 2134.
  23. Internet
  24. “HaKI: Membaca Aneka Sengketa merek IKEA”, http://wyndra associate.com/new/2016/10/12/haki-aneka-sengketa-merek-ikea/, diakses tanggal 10 Februari 2018.
  25. Putusan Pengadilan
  26. Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Nomor 39/Merek/2011/PN. Niaga.Jkt.Pst. tentang sengketa merek IKEA v IKEMA.
  27. Putusan Kasasi Mahkamah Agung Nomor 697 K/Pdt.Sus/2011 tentang sengketa merek IKEA v IKEMA.
  28. Putusan Peninjauan Kembali Mahkamah AgungNomor 165 PK/Pdt.Sus/2012 tentang sengketa merek IKEA v IKEMA.