From So-called 'Right of Publicity' to 'Unfair Competition' (I) - Supreme Court 2020. 3. 26. 2019ma6525 and 'Trade Value' Element -

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 273-314
Author(s):  
Junu Park ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Right Of Publicity

scholarly journals Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Merek Terkenal di Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-41
Author(s):  
Thoyyibah Bafadhal
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Paris Convention

Well-known trademark dispute generally occurs as business actors are tempted to take shortcuts by unfair competition, given the length of time taken for a trademark to be known in society. One of well-known trademark dispute that ever happen in Indonesia is dispute between IKEA Surabaya against IKEA Sweden, involving PT. Ratania Khatulistiwa as plaintiff and PT. Inter IKEA System B.V Sweden as defendant. The subject matter to be elaborated is to answer the question: what is the scope and provision of the well-known trademark in Indonesia, and how is the juridicial analysis of the well-known trademark dispute in Supreme Court Verdict Number 264K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015? The method used in this research is Juridical Normative by using approach of legislation and approach of case. Indonesia has consequences to adopt the provisions of the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement, including the provisions of the well-known trademark Furthermore, in verdict, the Panel of Judges should consider more legal protections against the well-known trademark which are the result of agreements from various countries including Indonesia in TRIPs. Abstrak Sengketa tentang merek terkenal masih sering terjadi di Indonesia. Salah satu sengketa merek terkenal yang terjadi belakangan di Indonesia adalah sengketa antara IKEA Surabaya melawan IKEA Swedia yang melibatkan PT. Ratania Khatulistiwa sebagai penggugat serta PT. Inter IKEA System B.V Swedia sebagai tergugat. Pokok permasalahan yang akan dielaborasi dalam artikel ini adalah, bagaimana ruang lingkup dan pengaturan merek terkenal di Indonesia, dan bagaimana analisis yuridis sengketa merek terkenal dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 264 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Artikel ini menyimpulkan, pertama, norma tentang merek terkenal di Indonesia saat ini bisa ditemui dalam UU No. 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan yurisprudensi peradilan, yang pada dasarnya mensyaratkan pengetahuan umum masyarakat dan reputasi merek tersebut, antara lain ditandai dengan terdaftar di banyak negara serta pemasaran dan peredaran produk secara luas. Kedua, dalam putusan kasus sengketa IKEA, majelis hakim terkesan mengabaikan iktikad baik masing-masing pihak dan kebenaran secara faktual tidak digunakannya merek tersebut, sehingga bisa menjadi preseden buruk dalam upaya melindungi merek terkenal di Indonesia.

scholarly journals EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CASE BY THE CARTEL COMMISSION HONDA AND YAMAHA BASED ON JUSTICE PANCASILA

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Otih Handayani ◽  
Juliana S. Ndolu ◽  
Achmad Jumeri Pamungkas ◽  
Douglas Napitupulu
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Power Sharing ◽  
Space Object ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Administrative Sanctions ◽  
Legal Force

<p><em>This research aims to reconstruct the effectiveness of law enforcement by the Commission in a cartel case Honda and Yamaha justice based on Pancasila. The first reaserch discuss about the effectiveness of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in law enforcement justice cartel cases Pancasila. Both reconstruct the article in Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition for law enforcement effectiveness. This research is a doctrinal approach of legislation and research .</em><em> Study shows the first enforcement by the Commission is not operating effectively. The imposition of administrative sanctions from the Commission do not have permanent legal force, where they opened a space for parties reported to object to the level of the Supreme Court (MA). The process to obtain permanent legal force very long whereas 73% of MA won the Commission's decision. Both to achieve effective enforcement, it is necessary to expand the authority of the Commission, which sanctions the administration carried out by the Commission are final or not opened space object. Agae ensure the Commission's decision is fair, then there needs to be a power-sharing within the Commission to establish the field of internal controls.</em></p>

scholarly journals Effectiveness Of Law Enforcement Case By The Cartel Commission Honda And Yamaha Based On Justice Pancasila

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Otih Handayani ◽  
Juliana S. Ndolu ◽  
Achmad Jumeri Pamungkas ◽  
Douglas Napitupulu
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Power Sharing ◽  
Space Object ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Administrative Sanctions ◽  
Legal Force

<p><em>This research aims to reconstruct the effectiveness of law enforcement by the Commission in a cartel case Honda and Yamaha justice based on Pancasila. The first reaserch discuss about the effectiveness of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in law enforcement justice cartel cases Pancasila. Both reconstruct the article in Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition for law enforcement effectiveness. This research is a doctrinal approach of legislation and research .</em><em> Study shows the first enforcement by the Commission is not operating effectively. The imposition of administrative sanctions from the Commission do not have permanent legal force, where they opened a space for parties reported to object to the level of the Supreme Court (MA). The process to obtain permanent legal force very long whereas 73% of MA won the Commission's decision. Both to achieve effective enforcement, it is necessary to expand the authority of the Commission, which sanctions the administration carried out by the Commission are final or not opened space object. Agae ensure the Commission's decision is fair, then there needs to be a power-sharing within the Commission to establish the field of internal controls.</em></p>

Introduction to the Special Section on Commercial Speech

2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
Timothy L. Fort ◽  
Steven R. Salbu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Special Section ◽  
The United States ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Commercial Speech ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Broad Interpretation

ABSTRACT:In 1998, activist Marc Kasky sued Nike for alleged false advertising and unfair competition under California law. Kasky alleged that Nike made false statements in a variety of what we would usually consider non-advertising forums, including interviews and letters to the press. The Supreme Court of California permitted Kasky's suit to go forward, even though the statements were not a part of traditional paid commercial advertisements. The Supreme Court of the United States, which initially granted certiorari to review the case, dismissed the writ on June 26, 2003, leaving intact California's broad interpretation of its statute and narrow construction of the Constitutional speech protections that constrain that statute. What is typically referred to as “the Nike case” or “the Kasky case” can mean either Kasky v. Nike (as the case was originally filed) or Nike v. Kasky (when Nike appealed the lower court's judgment).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document