Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai perlindungan merek terkenal dari Dilusi Merek di Indonesia. Adanya Dilusi Merek merupakan perluasan perlindungan bagi merek Terkenal. Tidak adanya pengaturan secara tegas dan khusus mengenai Dilusi Merek di Indonesia membuat adanya ketidakpastian bagi hakim dalam memutus perkara pada sengketa merek terkenal terhadap barang yang tidak sejenis. Suatu sengketa merek yang seharusnya dapat diselesaikan melalui Dilusi Merek akhirnya diselesaikan melalui Pelanggaran Merek biasa. Padahal secara nyata bahwa Dilusi Merek berbeda dengan Pelanggaran Merek pada umumnya. Sejauh ini hakim dalam memutus sengketa merek tidak sejenis menggunakan Pasal 4 dan Pasal 6 ayat (2) UU No. 15 Tahun 2001 tentang Merek. Pasal 6 ayat (2) sendiri masih perlu diatur lebih lanjut dalam Peraturan Pemerintah. Ketiadaan PP sebagaimana diamanatkan dalam Pasal 6 ayat (2) UU No. 15 Tahun 2001 membuat hakim tidak memiliki pedoman yang tetap dalam memutus sengketa merek terkenal tidak sejenis. Ketentuan mengenai merek terkenal juga belum diatur secara jelas dan utuh yang merupakan salah satu unsur utama agar suatu merek dapat dilindungi dari Dilusi Merek.

---

This thesis discusses the protection of Well-Known mark from Trademark Dilution in Indonesia. Trademark Dilution is an extension of protection for Well-Known Mark. The absence of forcefully and specifically regulation about Trademark Dilution in Indonesia cause the uncertainty for the judge in deciding the case of well-known mark dispute especially on dissimilar goods. A trademark dispute that should have been resolved in Trademark Dilution is resolved through trademark infringement instead. Whereas, it is obvious that Trademark Infringement and Trademark Dilution are different in general. So far the judge in deciding well-known mark dispute on dissimilar goods use Article 4 and Article 6, paragraph (2) of Law Number 15 of 2001 about Trademark. Article 6, paragraph (2) itself still needs to be further regulated in Government Regulation. The absence of Government Regulation as mandated in Article 6 paragraph (2) of Law Number 15 of 2001 cause the judge does not have persistent guidelines in deciding well-known mark dispute on dissimilar goods. The provision about well-known mark also has not clearly defined and intact, which is one of the main elements for a mark in order that a mark can be protected under Trademark Dilution."

"Pengaturan mengenai merek di Indonesia diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis. Pengaturan terkait merek dalam undang-undang tersebut juga meliputi pengaturan mengenai merek terkenal. Adanya ketentuan terkait merek terkenal dalam undang-undang tersebut ditandai dengan diaturnya kriteria merek terkenal dan perlindungan merek terkenal. Selain itu, Permenkumham No. 67 Tahun 2016 sebagai peraturan turunan dari UU MIG, memuat ketentuan yang lebih spesifik berkenaan dengan kriteria merek terkenal. Namun demikian, sekalipun UU MIG telah mengatur perlindungan terhadap merek terkenal, pengaturan tersebut dirasa belum cukup karena tidak mencakup perlindungan merek terkenal dari tindakan passing off dan dilusi merek. Tidak adanya pengaturan terkait perlindungan merek terkenal dari tindakan passing off dan dilusi merek dapat merugikan pemilik merek terkenal dan konsumen dari merek terkenal tersebut. Oleh karenanya, dalam skripsi ini Penulis menganalisis dan membandingkan pengaturan mengenai perlindungan merek terkenal, khususnya dari tindakan passing off dan dilusi merek antara Indonesia, Malaysia, dan India. Selain itu, Penulis juga menganalisis penerapan kriteria merek terkenal serta penerapan doktrin passing off dan dilusi merek dalam sengketa merek terkenal di Indonesia, Malaysia, dan India melalui putusan pengadilan yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap. Dalam penulisan skripsi ini, Penulis menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis-normatif dengan data yang diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pengaturan terkait perlindungan merek terkenal dalam UU MIG, belum mencakup keseluruhan unsur doktrin passing off dan dilusi merek, sehingga belum dapat dikatakan bahwa Indonesia menerapkan doktrin passing off dan dilusi merek dalam ketentuan mereknya.

---

Regulation of trademark in Indonesia is regulated in Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indication. The Law No. 20 of 2016 also includes the regulation of well-known trademarks. The existence of provisions related to well-known trademarks in the Law No. 20 of 2016 is marked by the stipulation of criteria for well-known trademarks and protection of well-known trademarks. In addition, Permenkumham No. 67 of 2016 as a derivative regulation of the Law No. 20 of 2016 contains more specific provisions regarding the criteria for well-known trademarks. However, even though the Law No. 20 of 2016 has regulated the protection of well-known trademarks, the regulation is deemed insufficient because it does not cover the protection of well-known trademarks from passing off and trademark dilution. The absence of regulation related to the protection of well-known trademarks from passing off and trademark dilution can be detrimental to well-known trademark’s owners and consumers. Therefore, in this thesis the Author analyzes and compares the regulation regarding the protection of well-known trademarks, especially from passing off and trademark dilution between Indonesia, Malaysia, and India. In addition, the Author also analyzes the application of the criteria for well-known trademarks, especially the application of the doctrine of passing off and trademark dilution in well-known trademark disputes in Indonesia, Malaysia, and India through court decisions that have permanent legal force. In writing this thesis, The Author uses a juridical-normative research method with data obtained through library research. The result of the research shows that the regulation related to the protection of well-known trademarks in Law No. 20 of 2016 does not cover all elements of the doctrine of passing off and trademark dilution, so it cannot be said that Indonesia applies the doctrine of passing off and trademark dilution in its trademarks provisions. "

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai perlindungan hukum merek terkenal atas tindakan dilusi merek terhadap persaingan curang di Indonesia. Penulis mengajukan dua pokok permasalahan: Pertama, mengenai perlindungan merek terkenal atas tindakan dilusi merek terhadap persaingan curang berdasarkan perjanjian internasional dan hukum merek di Amerika Serikat, Uni Eropa, Singapura, dan Indonesia. Sedangkan kedua, mengenai penerapan teori dilusi oleh Hakim dalam pertimbangannya dalam memutus sengketa merek terkenal. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normative dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan metode perbandingan hukum. Perlindungan yang diberikan dalam Undang-Undang No. 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis dan Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia No. 12 Tahun 2021 tentang Pendaftaran Merek belum secara eksplisit mengatur dan memberikan perlindungan merek terkenal atas suatu tindakan dilusi merek terhadap persaingan curang di Indonesia. Disisi lain, Singapore Trademark Act 1998 Chapter 332 as revised 2005 yang telah memberikan perlindungan hukum pada merek terkenal atas tindakan dilusi merek terhadap persaingan curang di Singapura. Namun, jika merujuk dalam pertimbangan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Niaga pada Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat secara tidak langsung telah menerapkan dan memberikan perlindungan hukum merek terkenal atas tindakan dilusi merek terhadap persaingan curang secara benar. Penulis menyarankan agar perlindungan merek terkenal terhadap dilusi merek dapat dijadikan sebuah ketentuan hukum baru demi memberikan kepastian hukum bagi pemilik merek terkenal.

---

This thesis discusses the legal protection of well-known trademarks for trademark dilution against unfair competition in Indonesia. The author proposes two main issues: First, regarding the protection of well-known trademarks for trademark dilution against unfair competition based on International Treaties and Trademark Law in the United States, European Union, Singapore, and Indonesia. While the second is regarding the implementation of dilution theory by the Judge in his consideration in deciding the well-known trademark dispute. By using a normative juridical research method with a statutory approach and a comparative law method. The protection provided in Law No. 20 of 2016 regarding Trademarks and Geographical Indications and The Regulation of Minister of Law and Human Rights No. 12 of 2021 regarding Trademark Registration has not explicitly regulated and provided protection for well-known trademarks for an act of trademark dilution against unfair competition in Indonesia. On the other hand, the Singapore Trademark Act 1998 Chapter 332 as revised in 2005 has provided legal protection for well-known trademarks for trademark dilution against unfair competition in Singapore. However, if referring to the consideration of the Panel of Judges of the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court, it has indirectly implemented and provided legal protection of well-known trademarks for trademarks dilution against unfair competition correctly. The authors suggest that the protection of well-known trademarks for trademark dilution can be used as a new legal provision to provide legal certainty for the owner of a well-known trademark."