Main Article Content

Abstract

At the Central Jakarta District Court No. 57/Pdt.Sus- Merek/2015/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst. on December 17, 2015 which essentially rejected the Wahl Clipper Corporation lawsuit. The decision was strengthened by the result of cassation No. 444 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2016 on July 26, 2016 which essentially rejected the appeal filed by the Cassation Petitioner, namely Wahl Clipper Corporation itself. The case is still ongoing until the Review of Decision Number 1 PK/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2018 on January 16, 2018, the party who feels aggrieved, namely Wahl Clipper Corporation has new evidence that can strengthen the evidence that the Petitioner is really harmed by the Respondent ; The author wants to examine the problems in this Legal Case Study, namely: 1. Is the analysis of judges' considerations regarding well-known brands in Indonesia in the Wahl Clipper Corporation case correct based on Law No. 15 of 2001 concerning Marks and Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications? 2. What are the legal consequences of the court's decision on the famous trademark lawsuit Number 444 K/Pdt.Sus- HKI/2016 in Indonesia?; After discussing and analyzing the trademark cancellation lawsuit between Wahl Clipper Corporation and Harry Sudjono, it can be concluded as follows: 1. The Supreme Court's decision Number 444K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2016 regarding the Wahl Clipper Corporation's lawsuit against Harry Sudjono is inaccurate. 2. The decision of the Supreme Court Number 444K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2016 which was ruled by the decision to be rejected, has no legal consequences. Because the judge rejected the Cassation application for the cancellation of the Mark.

Keywords

Wahl Clipper Corporation Distributor Merk Wahl

Article Details

Author Biography

Maeswadhita Julian P., Universitas Islam Indonesia, Indonesia

Fakultas Hukum

How to Cite
Julian P., Maeswadhita. 2021. “Studi Putusan Pengadilan Dalam Kasus Wahl Clipper Corporation Melawan Distributor Merek Wahl Di Indonesia”. JIPRO: Journal of Intellectual Property 4 (1):57-76. https://doi.org/10.20885/jipro.vol4.iss1.art5.

References

  1. Achmad Zen Umar Purba, Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Pasca TRIPs, Alumni, Bandung, 2005.
  2. Agung Indriyanto dan Irnie Mela Yusnita, Aspek Pendaftaran Merek, Rajawali Press, Jakarta, 2017.
  3. AIPO, “Brochur Trademark Application”, Sydney, Australia, 1997.
  4. Ahmadi Miru, Hukum Merek (Cara Mudah Mempelajari Undang-Undang Merek), Raja Grafindo, Jakarta, 2005.
  5. Anny Retnowati, Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidan, Jurnal Justitia Et Pax, Atma Jaya Yogyakarta, 2008.
  6. Ari Purwadi, Aspek Hukum Perdata Pada Perlindungan Konsumen, Yuridika, Majalah Fakultas Hukum Universitas Airlangga, Nomor 1 dan 2, Tahun VII.
  7. Budi Agus Riswandi dan M. Syamsudin, Hak Kekayaan Intelektual dan Budaya Hukum, Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta, 2004.
  8. Cita Citrawinda Priapantja, Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Masa Depan, Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, 2003.
  9. Dwi Rezki Sri Astarini, Penghapusan Merek Terkenal, Alumni, Bandung, 2009.
  10. Direktorat Jendera HKI, Buku Panduan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (Pertanyaan & Jawabannya), Ditjen HKI Depkeh & HAM, Jakarta, 2000.
  11. Eddy Damian,dkk, Hak Kekayaan Intelktual (Suatu Pengantar), Penerbit PT.Alumni, Bandung, 2003.
  12. Khoirul Hidayah, Hukum HKI (Hak Kekayaan Intelektual di Indonesia), UIN-Maliki Press, Malang, 2012.
  13. M. Yahya Harahap, Tinjauan Merek Secara Umum dan Hukum Merek di Indonesia Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 1992, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung, 1996.
  14. OK. Saidin, Aspek Hukum Hak Kekayaan Intelektual, Rajawali Press, Jakarta, 2015.
  15. Rahmi Jened, Hukum Merek (Trademark Law) Dalam Era Global dan Integrasi Ekonomi, Prenadamedia Group, Jakarta, 2015.
  16. Sudargo Gautama & Rizwanto Winata, Pembaharuan Hukum Merek Indonesia, Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung, 1997.
  17. Sudargo Gautama & Rizwanto Winata, Undang-Undang Merek Baru Tahun 2001,Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung, 2002.
  18. Suyud Margono dan Longginus, Pembaharuan Perlindungan Hukum Merek, CV. Novindo Pustaka Mandiri, Jakarta, 2002.
  19. Titon Slamet Kurnia, Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Merek Terkenal di Indonesia Pasca Perjanjian TRIPS, Alumni, Bandung, 2010.
  20. Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2001 Tentang Merek
  21. Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis
  22. Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik
  23. Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia Nomor 67 Tahun 2016.
  24. Putusan Mahkamah Agung (Putusan Kasasi) Nomor 444 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2016
  25. Putusan Mahkamah Agung (Putusan Peninjauan Kembali) Nomor 1 PK/Pdt.SusHKI/2018
  26. http://dinamikahukum.fh.unsoed.ac.id/index.php/JDH/article/viewFile/174/122
  27. http://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/detail/lt5563c921eed12/ini-perbedaan-merekbiasa,-merek-terkenal,-dan-merek-termasyhur
  28. http://mukahukum.blogspot.com/2010/02/pengertian-dan-kriteria-merek-merk.html
  29. http://kabar24.bisnis.com/read/20180319/16/751504/produsen-alat-cukur-wahlclipperkalahkan-pengusaha-lokal,
  30. https://kliklegal.com/merek-terkenal-perbandingan-uu-merek-lama-dan-baru/