The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license.
SENGKETA PENGHAPUSAN MEREK “MARLIN” ANTARA TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION DENGAN PT ASTRA HONDA MOTOR BERDASARKAN UNDANG UNDANG NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG MEREK DAN INDIKASI GEOGRAFIS (Studi Kasus Pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 396 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2024)
A trademark serves as a marker of the identity of goods or services as well as an instrument of legal protection in trade activities. The dispute over the removal of the Marlin trademark between Trek Bicycle Corporation and PT Astra Honda Motor (AHM) demonstrates the importance of active trademark use in maintaining registered trademark rights. The Marlin brand owned by Trek Bicycle is a series of hardtail trail bicycles designed to provide comfort and optimal performance in various terrains, both rocky paths and urban environments. This study aims to analyze the suitability of the Commercial Court's legal considerations in the Marlin trademark removal case and explain the legal consequences of the Supreme Court's decision on AHM. The study uses the theory of legal protection and reward theory with a normative juridical method through a statutory and case approach. Research data are sourced from secondary data in the form of books, documents, journals, and regulations, as well as primary data through interviews. Data collection techniques through literature studies and field studies, and are analyzed qualitatively to describe the facts and evaluate whether the Supreme Court's decision has reflected justice and legal protection for trademark owners. The results of the study show that the Commercial Court rejected Trek Bicycle's lawsuit formally, without deeply assessing the substance of trademark use. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court overturned the decision and affirmed the principle of use it or lose it based on Article 74 of Law Number 20 of 2016, because AHM was proven not to use the Marlin brand in its trading activities. This decision resulted in the removal of the Marlin brand from the General Register of Trademarks and the loss of AHM's exclusive rights. This study confirms that legal protection of trademarks does not only rely on registration, but also on actual use of the trademark, in order to prevent the practice of passive trademark retention and maintain healthy business competition.
HUKUM, UNIVERSITAS SULTAN AGENG TIRTAYASA
SENGKETA PENGHAPUSAN MEREK “MARLIN” ANTARA TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION DENGAN PT ASTRA HONDA MOTOR BERDASARKAN UNDANG UNDANG NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG MEREK DAN INDIKASI GEOGRAFIS (Studi Kasus Pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 396 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2024) (Text)
SENGKETA PENGHAPUSAN MEREK “MARLIN” ANTARA TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION DENGAN PT ASTRA HONDA MOTOR BERDASARKAN UNDANG UNDANG NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG MEREK DAN INDIKASI GEOGRAFIS (Studi Kasus Pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 396 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2024) (Other)
HTML Summary of #57405 SENGKETA PENGHAPUSAN MEREK “MARLIN” ANTARA TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION DENGAN PT ASTRA HONDA MOTOR BERDASARKAN UNDANG UNDANG NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG MEREK DAN INDIKASI GEOGRAFIS (Studi Kasus Pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 396 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2024)
K Law (General)