THE COMPARISON OF LEGAL DAMAGES FOR COPYRIGHT & BRAND INFRINGEMENT AMONG INDONESIA-CHINA LAWS

Intellectual Property Rights or what is often abbreviated as HAKI is a legal protection given by a certain country to a person or group of individuals who express their ideas in the form of works. This law is a state territory. This means that a work will only be protected by rights in the country where the work originated to obtain IPR. As stated in the Copyright Laws, Intellectual Property Rights are exclusive rights granted by a regulation to a person or group of people for their copyrighted works. This protected work is in the form of intangible objects such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks and tangible objects in the form of information, technology, literature, art, skills, science, and so on. The idea of compensation law for copyright and trademark infringement in Indonesia, of course, can imitate the copyright law and trademark law of the People's Republic of China in regulating more clearly the calculation of the value of losses for copyright and trademark infringement in order to be able to provide legal certainty for the owner / rights holders whose rights have been violated. The research use normative juridical approach. The purpose of writing is to analyze and explain the calculation of compensation by looking at the criteria, evidence, basis, form and formulation of calculating compensation for copyright and trademark infringement. The results of the study stated that the law for compensation that arises as a result of copyright and trademark infringement according to positive law in Indonesia still does not regulate in detail the calculation of the value of the loss of both copyrights and trademarks. Copyright Act No.28 of 2014 and Trademark Act No.20 of 2016 only gives rights to the right owner/right holder to file a claim for compensation, but the law does not regulate how to determine the value of the loss for a copyright infringement as well as brands.

USKLAĐIVANjE PRAVA ŽIGA REPUBLIKE SRBIJE SA PRAVOM ŽIGA EVROPSKE UNIJE – IZMENE ODREDABA O NAKNADI ŠTETE U NOVOM ZAKONU O ŽIGOVIMA

In the middle of the coronavirus crisis in 2020 Serbian Parliament has enacted the new Trademark Law (“Official Gazette of Republic of Serbia” No. 6/2020). With this law, many changes came along in trademark protection, especially in the infringement domain. Namely, the greatest changes that have occurred are the introduction of non-material damages recuperation for trademark infringement, and appropriation of the profits. Also, the treble damages reimbursement is now excluded from the Serbian Trademark Law. These changes are conducted to harmonize Serbian law with the Directive 2004/48/EC. However, it is still necessary to examine if there was a possibility that these new institutes lead us again to the penalty damages, even after treble damages exclusion. For this reason, the author of this paper will try to trace the origin of these changes trough examining the legal history and conducting comparative research, then he will examine the essence and the nature of these new institutes using analysis and dogmatic method.

Is Genericness Still Adequately Defined? Internet Search Firms and the Economic Rationale for Trademarks

Landes and Posner’s highly cited economics of trademark law based on search cost reduction has influenced economists, legislators, and courts for decades. Their account, however, predates consumer use of the Internet for search and did not anticipate the rise of firms such as Google to economy-wide power in search. Consequently, trademark law intended to help consumers find a preferred brand now also protects the means they typically use. An outdated view of trademarks as a natural and equitable right––very scrutable to STS––has led to Internet search firms owning reflexive “marks for finding other marks,” a structural advantage they have exploited through new dynamic and microtargeted forms of advertising into technoscientific rentiership. This paper revises Landes and Posner’s model to fit the case of an economy containing dominant firms with significant economy-wide search cost reduction power, adding (1) differentiation of technological elements of the original formal model and (2) analysis of the distribution and function of marks such as GOOGLE in consumer decision-making. The updated theory shows that marks granted to search firms are equivalent to generic marks in economic effect and constitute a new but unrecognized class that are functionally “super-generic.”

"Are You There, Trademark Law? It's Me, Misogyny."

When I became aware of the emergent body of legal scholarship on menstruation related topics on which this Symposium builds, I thought that the authors of these articles were very brave.1 I’m an imperfect but life-long feminist and accepted the emotional challenge that writing this Essay posed for me out of gratitude to those authors. Because my principal scholarly focus is intellectual property law, I approached the topic through the lens of trademark law. Part One of this article positions this Essay firmly within the contours of the author’s life and personal experiences with menstruation. Part Two maps common trademark and branding practices related to tampons and sanitary napkins. Part Three explains that the Lanham Act does not offer legal mechanisms by which to challenge the federal registration of sexist trademarks. As with racist trademarks, amplified criticism and persistent public pressure are the main mechanisms available to foment positive change in the marketplace for feminine hygiene products.

Protection of Animated Cartoon Character: Copyright or Trademark?

Animated cartoon character is a character created or depicted in an animated story with the aim of supporting the story in an animated film. Currently, many children's clothes, bags, shoes or accessories include animated pictures from cartoons with the aim of attracting buyers' attention to increase sales of these products. The purpose of this writing is to identify, analyse and elaborate legal protections for animated cartoon characters based on the provisions in the copyright law, as well as legal protection for animated cartoon characters used as brands. This was normative legal research using a statutory, conceptual and analytical approaches. Animated cartoon characters as one of the objects of copyright protection, namely images, receive automatic protection based on the Copyright Law and can also be registered as Trademarks, as long as the image has distinctive power and has no similarity in substantial or in its entirety. However, if any parties who intend to use the animated cartoon characters that already classified as a well-known trademark, that party can propose a License to the owner of the trademark as regulated under the provision of Article 42 paragraph (1) of Trademark Law

European approaches to «trade dress» protection and the possibility of their implementation in Ukraine

ir implementation in Ukraine. The concept of «trade dress» and such terms as «registered design», «brand im-age» («brand image»), «advertising campaign concept» («ad campaign concept») were analyzed. It is substantiated that the concept of «trade dress» is the broadest in meaning.It is established that the commercial design covers the unique shape of the product, color and decorative ele-ments, ie in the case of proving its originality, you can protect the commercial design on the basis of trademark law. The comparison of protection on the basis of a trademark and «trade dress» is made. Examples of trade dress protection in the food industry, pharmaceutical and automotive industries have been studied.The differences between trade dress and design patent are analyzed. It is established that the difference be-tween a design patent and a trade dress is that in order to obtain a patent, the design must be new and in no case a variant of the existing one. In addition, a comparative analysis of the concepts of «trade dress» and industrial design. It was found that in the EU countries increasingly use the category of «trade dress» in resolving disputes, even though such a concept is not inherent in the countries of the continental legal system, including Austria, Germany, France and others.It is substantiated that the concept of «trade dress» should be understood as a commercial image of the product (or service), which allows to distinguish the manufacturer of the product (or service provider) and includes various elements (including design, shape, materials, colors, etc.) that distinguish goods or services. It is argued that in the process of recoding the Central Committee of Ukraine it is important to improve the institutions of intellectual prop-erty law, so that the protection of producers of goods in line with modern trends and European approaches. That is why it is necessary to include the concept of «trade dress» in the draft of the new Civil Code of Ukraine.