The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license.
PERSAMAAN PADA POKOKNYA SENGKETA HAK MEREK KELAS JASA RESTORAN TORIKARA DAN KINNOTORIKARA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG MEREK DAN INDIKASI GEOGRAFIS
Competition in the economic world is common in this era of globalization where the trade industry uses brands as a differentiating force. However, it is not uncommon for cases of unfair competition to arise in the use of trademarks. Therefore, there is a substantive examination on the application for trademark registration in order to filter out unfair competition. The bodies in charge of handling trademark registration applications are the Directorate of Trademarks and Geographical Indications, and in the appeal level there is a Trademark Appeal Commission. In Decision No. 106/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2023/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. there is a case of refusal by the Trademark Appeal Commission against the Torikara trademark which is considered to have similarities in essence with the Kinnotorikara trademark which is a relative reason for a trademark cannot be accepted for registration. Through his consideration, the judge stated that the plaintiff's lawsuit was obscure (obscuur libel) and declared the lawsuit unacceptable. The type of research used by the author is juridical-normative. To analyze the author uses the method of literature study (library research). The approach in this research uses a case approach and statutory approach. In writing this thesis, the theories used are law enforcement and judge's consideration. Law enforcement is the realization of ideas such as justice and in this study it is used to see how law enforcement is carried out by judges through their considerations in disputes in Decision Number 106/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2023/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. The results of research conducted by the author found the conclusion that 1) there is no similarity in essence between the two brands 2) The judge's decision does not fulfill the principle that the judge is obliged to adjudicate the entire petitum of the lawsuit because it only decides to adjudicate one petitum of the lawsuit and does not consider other petitums of the lawsuit 3) The judge should not only focus on adjudicating one petitum of the lawsuit and ignore other petitums of the lawsuit, so that if there is one petitum of the lawsuit that is declared unacceptable while others can be considered and tried, the judge should decide by declaring rejecting one petitum of the lawsuit and granting the lawsuit in part.
FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUM, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
PERSAMAAN PADA POKOKNYA SENGKETA HAK MEREK KELAS JASA RESTORAN TORIKARA DAN KINNOTORIKARA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG MEREK DAN INDIKASI GEOGRAFIS (Text)
PERSAMAAN PADA POKOKNYA SENGKETA HAK MEREK KELAS JASA RESTORAN TORIKARA DAN KINNOTORIKARA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG MEREK DAN INDIKASI GEOGRAFIS (Other)
HTML Summary of #71873 PERSAMAAN PADA POKOKNYA SENGKETA HAK MEREK KELAS JASA RESTORAN TORIKARA DAN KINNOTORIKARA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG MEREK DAN INDIKASI GEOGRAFIS
346.04 HAKI, Undang-undang Hak Cipta, Copy Right