The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license.
ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN NIET ONTVANKELIJKE VERKLAARD DALAM SENGKETA PENGALIHAN HAK ATAS MEREK WILTON (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN NO. 47/PDT.SUS-HKI/2023/PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST JO. PUTUSAN NO. 171 K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2024)
The regulation of trademark rights is regulated in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications, in which the rules are justified for the transfer of trademark rights through various mechanisms such as agreements to inheritance. However, in practice, the transfer of rights to the trademark often causes disputes as experienced by the heirs of the owner of the WILTON brand. Legal problems arose when efforts to seek justice in the Commercial Court actually hit the wall of procedural law formality, which resulted in the decision of the Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard (NO), so that the substance of the case regarding alleged falsification of documents and bad faith was never examined by the judge. The purpose of writing this thesis is to analyze in depth the judge's legal considerations in imposing a NO decision on the basis of error in persona and obscuur libel in the WILTON trademark case, especially in maintaining a balance between formal legal certainty and the fulfillment of a sense of justice for the parties. As well as to evaluate the legal consequences and legal remedies that can be taken by the aggrieved parties after the decision. This research is based on Gustav Radbruch's Theory of Decision regarding the balance of legal objectives, as well as the Legal Protection Theory from Philipus M. Hadjon. With a normative method, the main data is sourced from the Commercial Court Decision No. 47/2023 and the Supreme Court Decision No. 171/2024, supported by legal literature and related regulations. Information was collected through literature studies and in-depth interviews with judges to dissect the empirical dimension of the practice of NO decisions in Intellectual Property disputes. The results of the study show that the NO decision handed down by the judge in the WILTON trademark dispute was caused by the lack of a defendant (plurium litis consortium) and a vague lawsuit (obscuur libel) and in practice had a clear legal basis. The plaintiff in this case, ideally, must be good at taking advantage of loopholes to make improvements to the lawsuit and the judge must actively assist and give ideal consideration in this effort as mandated by Article 4 paragraph (2) of Law Number 48 of 2009 so that the implementation of a simple, fast, and low-cost trial is carried out as an effort to realize justice for the parties. As a result of the legal consequences of this ruling, legal protection for the legal owners of the WILTON brand, especially the plaintiffs, is delayed and is in uncertainty until further legal action.
FAKULTAS SYARIAH DAN HUKUM, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN NIET ONTVANKELIJKE VERKLAARD DALAM SENGKETA PENGALIHAN HAK ATAS MEREK WILTON (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN NO. 47/PDT.SUS-HKI/2023/PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST JO. PUTUSAN NO. 171 K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2024) (Text)
HTML Summary of #76917 ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN NIET ONTVANKELIJKE VERKLAARD DALAM SENGKETA PENGALIHAN HAK ATAS MEREK WILTON (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN NO. 47/PDT.SUS-HKI/2023/PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST JO. PUTUSAN NO. 171 K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2024)
346.04 HAKI, Undang-undang Hak Cipta, Copy Right