Sengketa Merek KANDUI dalam Perspektif Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Medan Nomor 4/Pdt.Sus-Hki/Merek/2019/PN Niaga Medan)

Abstract

Unfair business competition arises from trademark application made in bad faith. The element of good faith is crucial in the trademark registration process in Indonesia to prevent future disputes or conflicts over the use of a mark. The trademark dispute in Medan District Court Decision Number 4/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2019/PN Niaga Medan occurred due to the defendant’s bad faith in registering the trademarks “KANDUI” and “KANDUI VILLAS” as accommodation names, despite the fact that the plaintiff had already used them earlier. Furthermore, the defendant had served as a manager in the accommodation business operated by the plaintiff. This study aims to answer the following research questions: (1) How is legal protection for trademarks based on the principle of bad faith in relation to unfair business competition? (2) What are the indications of unfair business competition practices that emerged in the KANDUI trademark dispute? (3) Were the considerations of the Panel of Judges in Medan District Court Decision Number 4/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek/2019/PN Niaga Medan consistent with the provisions of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications?. This study employs a normative juridical research method with a descriptive analytical approach. The data are derived from both primary and secondary legal materials. The research applies statutory and analytical approaches. The results show that Indonesia adheres to a constitutive registration system based on the first to file principle, emphasizing good faith. If a trademark is registered in bad faith, the registration may be canceled in accordance with Article 77 of Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The act of unfair business competition in this case arose from the defendant’s personal registration of the trademark without the consent of the founders of KANDUI RESORT, despite being aware of its reputation and prior use. The panel of judges demonstrated inconsistency in their ruling, as they acknowledged in their legal reasoning that the first to use principle could be applied, yet failed to implement it in their final decision.