Christian Rahmat Gulo, Alvandri (2023) TINJAUAN TERHADAP KEDUDUKAN MEREK YANG DI PUTUS OLEH HAKIM UNTUK MENCEGAH ADANYA FAKTOR KEBINGUNGAN (LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION) Studi Kasus: MS Glow dan MS Glow. S1 thesis, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa.
![[img]](https://eprints.untirta.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
Alvandri Christian Rahmat Gulo_1111190046_Fulltext.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (21MB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
Alvandri Christian Rahmat Gulo_1111190046_01.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
Alvandri Christian Rahmat Gulo_1111190046_02.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (489kB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
Alvandri Christian Rahmat Gulo_1111190046_03.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (502kB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
Alvandri Christian Rahmat Gulo_1111190046_04.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (455kB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
Alvandri Christian Rahmat Gulo_1111190046_05.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (300kB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
Alvandri Christian Rahmat Gulo_1111190046_ref.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (429kB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
Alvandri Christian Rahmat Gulo_1111190046_Lamp.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (39MB) | Request a copy |
Abstract
The case of MS Glow and PS Glow can cause problems related to the position of both brands. Especially regarding the rights that should be obtained by the trademark owner in the form of exclusive rights whose regulations are in Article 3 UUMIG 2016. The results of the two court decisions that have won the two brands in this case are MS Glow and PS Glow brands cause uncertainty about the exclusive rights of the two brands. On the other hand, the decision can provide injustice. The identification of the problem in this study is how the position of MS Glow and PS Glow trademarks decided by two different courts and how the legal consequences of the judicial decision on the likelihood of confusion to the public. The theory used is the theory of legal certainty and the theory of justice. The research method used is normative empirical, with case study research specifications, namely research that examines contemporary phenomena as a whole and thoroughly in actual conditions, using various forms of qualitative data. The data sources are secondary data and primary data, with purposive sampling data collection techniques and data analysis used are descriptive qualitative. The results of this study indicate that, MS Glow and PS Glow Trademarks have their respective positions after the Medan District Court decision won MS Glow and Surabaya District Court won PS Glow. However, this contradicts several articles of UUMIG 2016, such as articles 3, 20, and 21. However, the decision in the Surabaya Commercial Court against MS Glow was ignored, which resulted in the victory of PS Glow. There is potential for public confusion due to this inconsistency. Secondly, the judicial decisions against the MS Glow and PS Glow marks show the likelihood of confusion for the public. Both the Medan and Surabaya Commercial Courts stated that consumers felt deceived and confused. The researcher referred to Article 21 of the UUMIG, which is about unauthorized similarities in the Medan Court, and to Article 21 paragraph (3) of the UUMIG about bad faith in the Surabaya Court. Because this creates unfair competition and has the potential to confuse the public.
| Item Type: | Thesis (S1) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributors: |
|
|||||||||
| Additional Information: | Kasus MS Glow dan PS Glow dapat menimbulkan permasalahan terkait kedudukan kedua merek. Terutama mengenai hak yang seharusnya didapatkan oleh pemilik merek berupa hak ekslusif yang peraturannya ada di Pasal 3 UUMIG 2016. Hasil dari kedua putusan pengadilan yang telah memenangkan kedua merek dalam hal ini adalah merek MS Glow dan PS Glow menimbulkan ketidakpastian mengenai hak eksklusif dari kedua merek tersebut. Disisi lain, adanya keputusan tersebut dapat memberikan ketidakadilan. Identifikasi masalah dalam penelitian ini yaitu bagaimana kedudukan merek MS Glow dan PS Glow yang diputus dua pengadilan yang berbeda dan bagaimana akibat hukum dari putusan peradilan tersebut terhadap adanya faktor kebingungan likelihood of confusion terhadap masyarakat. Teori yang digunakan teori kepastian hukum dan teori keadilan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu normatif empiris, dengan spesifikasi penelitian studi kasus, yaitu penelitian yang meneliti fenomena kontemporer secara utuh dan menyeluruh pada kondisi yang sebenarnya, dengan menggunakan berbagai bentuk data kualitatif. Sumber datanya yaitu data sekunder dan data primer, dengan teknik pengumpulan data purposive sampling serta analisis data yang digunakan yaitu deskriptif kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa, Merek MS Glow dan PS Glow memiliki kedudukan masing-masing setelah putusan PN Medan memenangkan MS Glow dan PN Surabaya memenangkan PS Glow. Namun, ini bertentangan dengan beberapa pasal UUMIG 2016, seperti pasal 3, 20, dan 21. Meski demikian, keputusan di Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya terhadap MS Glow diabaikan, yang mengakibatkan kemenangan PS Glow. Ada potensi kebingungan masyarakat karena inkonsistensi ini. Yang kedua, Putusan peradilan terhadap merek MS Glow dan PS Glow menunjukkan adanya faktor kebingungan (likelihood of confusion) bagi masyarakat. Baik Pengadilan Niaga Medan maupun Surabaya menyatakan bahwa konsumen merasa tertipu dan bingung. Peneliti merujuk pada pasal 21 UUMIG, yakni tentang persamaan tanpa izin dalam Pengadilan Medan, serta pada pasal 21 ayat (3) UUMIG tentang itikad tidak baik dalam Pengadilan Surabaya. Karena hal ini menciptakan persaingan yang tidak sehat dan berpotensi membingungkan masyarakat. | |||||||||
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Kata Kunci: kedudukan merek, kemungkinan kebingungan, normatif empiris Keywords: Brand position, possibility of confusion, normative empirical. | |||||||||
| Subjects: | K Law > K Law (General) K Law > KZ Law of Nations |
|||||||||
| Divisions: | 01-Fakultas Hukum 01-Fakultas Hukum > 74201-Program Studi Ilmu Hukum |
|||||||||
| Depositing User: | Alvandri Gulo Gulo | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 20 Dec 2023 14:44 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 22 Dec 2023 09:26 | |||||||||
| URI: | http://eprints.untirta.ac.id/id/eprint/31628 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |