Legal Analysis of The Judge's Decision on Trademark Cancellation Study of Decision Number 101/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2022/PN JKT.PST

Authors

  • Nurdalila Nurdalila Faculty of Law, University of Labuhan Batu, Indonesia
  • Sriono Sriono Faculty of Law, University of Labuhan Batu, Indonesia
  • Wahyu Simon Tampubolon Faculty of Law, University of Labuhan Batu, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51601/ijse.v6i1.416

Abstract

This research aims to find out and understand the Regulations onUnregisterable and Rejected Trademarksbased on Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications and the Judge's Considerations in Deciding to Cancel Registered Trademarks Based on Decision Number 101/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2022/PN Jkt.Pst.The type of legal research used is normative legal research. The types and legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials. The approaches used in this research are the statutory approach and the case approach. Research Results: 1.Regulations AgainstUnregisterable and Rejected Trademarksbased on Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications regulated in Article 20, 21 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3),WhereasCriminal provisions for misuse of Trademark Rights are regulated in Chapter XVIII concerning Criminal Provisions regulated in Article 100 paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) and Article 101 paragraphs (1) and (2);2.Judge's Consideration Based on Decision Number 101/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2022/PN Jkt.Pst states thatThe brand in question has similarities in principle, namely similarities caused by the existence of dominant elements between one brand and another brand so that it gives the impression of similarities, both regarding the form, placement method, writing method or combination of elements, as well as similarities in pronunciation, contained in the brand, referring to the Supreme Court Decision Number 279 PK/Pdt/1992 dated January 16, 1998, stating that the brand used is the same as a whole or has similarities in principle can be described as: 1) Similar form (similarity of form); 2) Same composition (similarity of composition); 3) Same combination (similarity combination); 4) Same elements (similarity elements); 5) Similar sound (similarity sound); 6) Similar pronunciation (phonetic similarity); 7) Similar appearance (similarity in appearance).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection.

[2] Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications.

[3] Budi Agus Riswandi and M. Syamsudin, 2004, Intellectual Property Rights and Legal Culture, Jakarta, PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.

[4] Enny Mirfa, Legal Protection of Registered Trademarks, Faculty of Law, Samudra University, Meurandeh Langsa, Aceh, Samudra Keadilan Law Journal, Volume 11, Number 1, January-June 2016, pp. 65-77

[5] Kurniawan, R., & Sulistiyono, E. (2021). Legal Protection for Registered Trademark Owners in Indonesia Against Passing Off in the Provisions of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Case Study of Decision Number 57/Pdt. SusMerek/2019/PN Niaga Jkt. Pst.): Trademarks, Trademark Piggybacking, Trademark Legal Protection. Jurnal Pro Hukum: Journal of Legal Research, University of Gresik, 10(2), 59-70.

[6] Meli Hertati Gultom, Legal Protection for Registered Trademark Rights Holders Against Trademark Infringement, Warta Journal Edition: 56, April 2018 | ISSN: 1829 – 7463. Dharmawangsa University.

[7] M. Djumhana and R. Djubaedillah. 1997. Intellectual Property Rights: History, Theory and Practice in Indonesia, Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.

[8] 1993, Intellectual Property Rights, Bandung, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.

[9] M. Yahya Harahap, 1996, General Review of Trademarks and Trademark Law in Indonesia Based on Law No. 19 of 1992, Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.

[10] Septianto, HR, & Inayah, SH (2017). Legal Analysis of Legal Protection of Home Industries Guitar Musical Instrument Trademark Rights According to Law No. 20 of 2016 Concerning Trademark Rights and Geographical Indications (Case Study in Ngrombo Village, Baki District, Sukoharjo Regency) (Doctoral dissertation, Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Downloads

Published

2026-02-18

How to Cite

Nurdalila, N., Sriono, S., & Simon Tampubolon, W. (2026). Legal Analysis of The Judge’s Decision on Trademark Cancellation Study of Decision Number 101/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2022/PN JKT.PST. International Journal of Science and Environment (IJSE), 6(1), 902–913. https://doi.org/10.51601/ijse.v6i1.416