Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1458 Download : 742

Main Article Content

Abstract

The purposes in this study are to analyze the Supreme Court decision on the cancellation of the trademark PIERRE CARDIN has been appropriate or not by trademark legislation in Indonesia, to assess the legal consequences of the cancellation of PIERRE CARDIN, and to assess potential remedies conducted by Pierre Cardin. This study is a normative empirical legal study. Secondary data consists of primary legal materials in the form of Act No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, Law No. 20 Year 2016 regarding Trademarks and IG and the Supreme Court decision No. 557 K / Pdt.Sus-IPR / 2015, while the secondary legal materials in the form of books and scientific journals. While the primary data is conducted by field research. The Supreme Court decision is deciding cases cancellation of the famous mark of PIERRE CARDIN not in accordance with regulations in Indonesia and the norm of international treaties regulating the Famous Mark. Judges tend to be rigid and not digging deeply law. Moreover, Directorate Mark as the parties who participated in trademark infringement less careful in carrying out checks on mere registration, resulting in double registration of the same brand but different owners. Because of law accepted by the brand which canceled its mark is barred from the General Register of Trademarks. The termination of legal protection of the mark is registered. Legal remedies that can be done by Pierre Cardin as the owner of famous brands are apply for Judicial Review, file a new lawsuit, and conduct License Agreement.

Article Details

Author Biography

Yulinda Ika Saputra Haryanto, Universitas Islam Indonesia

Fakultas Hukum

References

  1. Buku
  2. Ali, Zainuddin. (2009). Metode Pennelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
  3. Maulana, Insan Budi. dkk. (2000). Kapita Selekta Hak Kekayaan Intelektual I. Jakarta: Yayasan Klinik HAKI Jakarta dan Pusat Studi Hukum FH UII.
  4. Kesowo, Bambang. (1998). Pidato sambutan pada Seminar Nasional Perlindungan Merek Terkenal di Indonesia. Bandung: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Parahyangan- Perhimpunan Masyarakat HAKI Indonesia- United States Information Service.
  5. Imawan, Handitya Richo. (2013). Tinjauan Pembatalan Merek Dagang. Surakarta: Naskah Publikasi Karya Ilmiah, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta
  6. Sjahputra, Iman. (2009). Menggali Keadilan Hukum Analisis Politik Hukum & Hak Kekayaan Intelektual. Bandung: PT Alumni.
  7. Peraturan Perundang-Undangan
  8. Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan IndikasiGeografis dalam Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2016 Nomor 252
  9. Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2001 tentang Merek dalam Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2001 Nomor 110
  10. Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2009 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 1985 tentang Mahkamah Agung dalam Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4958
  11. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 557 K/Pdt.Sus/2015
  12. Perjanjian Internasional
  13. Paris Convention
  14. TRIPs Agreement (Agreement on Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights),
  15. Karya Ilmiah
  16. Sabriando Leonal. (2011). Implementasi HKI dalam Hubungannya Dengan Praktik Persaingan Usaha Bidang Merek. Jakarta: Tesis Universitas Indonesia.
  17. Tala, Wahdini Syafrina S. (2006). Identifikasi Faktor-Faktor Penyebab Sengketa Merek Terkenal (Studi atas Putusan Pengadilan). Medan: Tesis Magister Kenotariatan Program Pascasarjana. Universitas Sumatera Utara.