| dc.description.abstract | A brand is a sign that can be graphically displayed in the form of images, logos,
names, words, letters, numbers, color arrangements, in the form of 2 (two) dimensions
and/or 3 (three) dimensions, sounds, holograms, or a combination of 2 (two) or more
such elements to distinguish goods and/or services produced by people or legal entities
in the trading activities of goods and/or services. The actions of other parties who use
the same brand in its entirety or in essence with the registered brand of another party
for similar goods and/or services produced and/or traded, according to Article 100
paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Brands and Geographical Indications
are prohibited acts and include the type of violation. The problems in this study are:
How is the criminal liability of criminal offenders for registered brands that have
similarities in the principal in Verdict No. 138 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN Pkl, how is the proof
of criminal acts on registered brands that have similarities in the main in The Verdict
iv
No. 138 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN Pkl, and how is the legal analysis of the Judge's verdict in
deciding case Number 138 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN Pkl?
The research is descriptively analytical with a normative juridical approach.
Qualitative analysis methods are used to process and analyze research data and further
conclusions are drawn using deductive methods through normative frameworks.
The results showed: The form of criminal liability in Decision No. 138 / Pid.B /
2018 / PN Pkl is by the provision of criminal prison sanctions in accordance with the
provisions of Article 100 paragraph (2) of Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Brands and
Geographical Indications to defendants of Brand violations. Proof of criminal acts in
Decision No. 138 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN Pkl based on the system of proof according to the
Law negatively and the provisions of Article 184 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP. The
legal analysis of the decision of the Panel of Judges who decided was correct in
accordance with the provisions of Article 183 of the Kuhap and Article 182 paragraph
(4) of the Kuhap, and the provisions of Article 100 paragraph (2) of Law No. 20 of 2016
concerning Brands and Geographical Indications. Suggestions that can be given
include: criminal liability in Decree No. 138 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN Pkl, should not only
refer to the articles in the Kuhap and Article 100 paragraph (2) of Law No. 20 of 2016
concerning Brands and Geographical Indications only, but must also be supplemented
with articles in the Criminal Code that have a relationship or with jurisprudence. Proof
in Verdict No. 138 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN Pkl, should apply the element of equality in
essence as the most important indicator in the examination of cases and the
determination of the verdict. Verdict No. 138 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN Pkl, should not be too
far from what the Public Prosecutor charged in his Indictment. This is intended to
provide fairness and protection for registered Brand owners and violations of the
Marks do not occur again at a later date | en_US |
