| dc.description.abstract | ABSTRACT
The Ministry of Law and Human Rights or the Directorate General of
Intellectual Property or the Directorate of Marks and Geographics should be careful
before accepting a trademark registration by adhering to the applicable laws and
regulations that adhere to the first to file principle so that there is no registration of
the same mark. Therefore, it is necessary to study the regulation of trademarks
according to Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications
associated with the Decision of the Commercial Court at the Medan District Court
No. 1/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Brand/2020/PN Niaga Mdn in conjunction with Supreme Court
Decision No. 1333K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021, Efforts to resolve trademark disputes in
accordance with Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical
Indications associated with the Decision of the Commercial Court at the Medan
District Court No. 1/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Brand/2020/PN Niaga Mdn in conjunction with
Supreme Court Decision No. 1333K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021 and the consideration of the
panel of judges who rejected the Cassation Petitioner's appeal regarding the
INTERCO mark in the Decision of the Commercial Court at the Medan District Court
No. 1/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Brand/2020/PN Niaga Mdn in conjunction with Supreme Court
Decision No. 1333K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021.
This research is a normative research, and analytical descriptive in nature
which describes and analyzes a phenomenon related to the Dispute on the Use of the
INTERCO Brand Based on the Decision of the Commercial Court at the Medan
District Court No. 1/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Brand/2020/PN Niaga Mdn in conjunction with
Supreme Court Decision No. 1333K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021.
The results of the study, the regulation of brands according to Law no. 20 of
2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications adopts a first to file system in
which the party registers a trademark that obtains protection as regulated in Article 3
of Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications, if it is
related to the Decision of the Commercial Court at the Medan District Court No.
1/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Brand/2020/PN Niaga Mdn in conjunction with Supreme Court
Decision No. 1333K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021, the party who first registers for the
INTERCO mark gets legal protection. Efforts to resolve trademark disputes in
accordance with Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical
Indications, litigation efforts in the form of an Appeal Application to the Appeal
Commission are regulated in Article 28-Article 34 of the law and a lawsuit to the Commercial Court as stipulated in Article 72-Article 76 and Article 83 of the law and
non-litigation is regulated in Article 93 of the law, if it is related to the Decision of
the Commercial Court at the Medan District Court no.
1/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Brand/2020/PN Niaga Mdn in conjunction with Supreme Court
Decision No. 1333K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021, the settlement of the INTERCO trademark
dispute is carried out by means of litigation in the form of trademark cancellation.
The consideration of the panel of judges who rejected the Cassation Petitioner's
appeal regarding the INTERCO mark in Supreme Court Decision No.
1333K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021 where at the first level, namely the Decision of the
Commercial Court at the Medan District Court No. 1/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek/2020/PN
Niaga Mdn found the judge's consideration which basically granted the Plaintiff's
claim in its entirety because the Defendant violated the first to file system principle;
The Defendant's Mark has similarities in principle with the Plaintiff's mark and the
Defendant's Mark has been registered in bad faith, while the considerations in
Supreme Court Decision No. 1333K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021 is the Defendant/Applicant
for Cassation violating the first to file system principle; The mark of the
Defendant/Applicant for Cassation is essentially the same as the mark of the
Plaintiff/Respondent of Cassation.
It is hoped that the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights will be
more careful in assessing registered trademarks so as to avoid trademark
cancellation disputes which tend to be detrimental to brand owners. It is hoped that
implementing regulations or changes to Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Brands and
Geographical Indications related to trademark disputes so that the classification is
clearer. In general, the Supreme Mark Judge of Intellectual Property Rights in
making decisions rejecting the cassation request emphasizes the arguments for
consideration so that the legal considerations are clearer and in-depth.
Keywords: Brand, First to File and Equation At Anything | en_US |
