INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK RIGHTS IN RELATION TO
UNFAIR BUSINESS COMPETITION IN UNITED STATES
Introduction
In the era of global trade, a significant effect in the realm of national trade, one of which
is related to the brand that is important for financial activities or the business world. The role
of trademarks is very important, especially in the face of reasonable business competition, so
that United States again outperformed Law No. 14 of 1997 so that Law No. 15 of 1997 was
drafted 2001 on Trademark, hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law. With the existence of
trademark guidelines in a legal guideline, one of which is the definition of trademark. Given
the setting of Article 1 Point 1 of the Trademark-Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, states
that a trademark is a sign as an image, name, word, letter, number, shading action, or a
mixture of these components that has a differentiator used in the exchange of labor and
products.
A mark is difficult to register assuming registration is premeditated and dishonest to
register a mark which is similar in basic degree or in whole to a mark which has a place with
another party which has just been registered, or which is similar in basic degree or in whole
to a well-known mark which has a place with another party.
In the thinking of Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademarks at the time of world
exchange, in accordance with the global show that has been confirmed in United States, the
task of brand names is very important, especially in maintaining reasonable business
competition (Saidin, 2012). Brands can prevent unfair business competition. With the brand,
the comparison of labor and products can be recognized from the beginning, the quality and
the guarantee that the goods are unique. The global exchange period must be continuously
maintained if there is a solid business competition environment (Darusman, 2016).
Despite the fact that improvements have been made, in reality the act of abusing the
privilege of a brand name still continues. In United States, the regulation regarding brand
names has several debatable brand names that can be secured, the case I take is the
infringement of similarity at the basic or overall level with a prominent mark. One of the
issues raised in this exploration is the oddity that occurs in Bali, especially in Pasar Badung,
Denpasar City, characterized by the number of merchandise in circulation, for example, fake
Adidas sacks. The high demand for counterfeit products is due to the much cheaper price of
around USD. 55,-USD. 80, which is inversely proportional to the first value of around USD.
350,-USD. 850,. With the increase in the number of buyers, the traders who sell counterfeit
merchandise also increase (Kardiasa, 2013). United States individuals tend to be on the
utilization of unknown goods (name not approved), also the brand is a well-known brand
(Saleh, 1990). Due to the low purchasing power of individuals, not having the option to buy
genuine goods that have a truly exorbitant price range, entrepreneurs (traders) intend to
provide KW/identity impersonation/fake products using well-known brands. . This case can
be classified as unjustified business competition because it harms one party.
The existence of legal certainty for legitimate trademark owners is expected to provide
privileges that are restrictive (unique) for trademark owners (selective rights) so that different
parties are difficult to involve something very similar or comparable to theirs, labor and
products are similar or arguably equivalent (Sujatmiko, 2008).
With a trademark that has been registered is protected by law, under Article 35
paragraph 1 of the Act legal protection of registered trademarks for a maximum of 10 years.
Such arrangements are intended so that trademark owners can be disciplined in using their
trademarks and obey and obey the applicable trademark regulations for the sake of order and
smoothness in trade to create peace in society (Dewi, 2019). The problem of violations of the
law regarding trademarks as well as procedures and government actions in providing legal
protection to trademarks that have been registered is still a subject of study that until now has
not found a concrete solution.
Based on the explanation of the above problems, through this research the author tries to
find out the form of violation of trademark rights categorized as unfair business competition
and tries to find knowledge related to legal remedies for businesses that market trademarks
without a license.
Methods
Normative legal research techniques are used as a form of research method in this study.
Normative legal science is problem solving, which means that it is a scientific analysis
related to how to solve or describe various legal problems (Atmadja and Budi Artha, 2018).
This writing uses written legal analysis from literature or reference materials while the
approach uses statutory and conceptual approaches. In this method the author conducts
research using sources from various materials in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary
legal materials.
The literature study was conducted by the author in order to search for materials taken
from the Civil Code and Regulations that have relevance to legal violations of trademark
rights. In addition, the sources used by the author come from books, journals, or other written
sources both print and digital that have relevance to the topic being written about.
The legal materials that have been collected will be analyzed using qualitative and
inteUSDretative techniques. The use of qualitative techniques in question is by selecting
legal materials that have content that is able to answer the problems discussed. The
presentation of this research will be written in a descriptive way by compiling systematically
which allows it to get a scientific conclusion.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
Discussion
Forms of Infringement of Trademark Rights Which Can Be Categorized as Unfair
Business Competition
In introducing an item to the general public, makers will stamp the merchandise as well
as the administrations they produce as something that can recognize it from different items,
this mark is known as a brand (Nurachmad, 2011). In addition to exchange, marks are also
used in the field of promotion and marketing as the general public often connects the image,
quality and fame of labor and products with a particular brand. In United States, as regulated
in Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Law).
Infringement of trademark rights often occurs due to dishonesty of business actors in
trade competition. Fear of loss is the main cause of business actors to violate the law. They
often ignore the existing laws. Trademark infringement practices that often occur are (Shaleh
& Trisnabilah, 2020). Business actors imitate well-known trademarks that already have a
market and are known to many people. Business actors will make products in the same way
as the original product so that people will prefer their products because they will usually be
sold at a lower price.
A brand name as a component of licensed innovation rights for its proprietor has
syndication freedom or selective freedom to engage or permit various encounters in the
business world. Whereas Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition through Article 50 prohibits infrastructure that
limits the utilization of brand freedom. Nonetheless, mistreatment of brand name privileges
may give rise to unjustified monopolistic practices and business competition. Thus, it tends
to be regulated as a violation of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on the Prohibition of
Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Kusoy, 2002).
The infringement of brand freedom in the exchange of labor and products can be covered
as an act of brand duplication, for this situation a deceptive contest is carried out by a
business visionary who does not mean well by delivering goods using a brand name that is
generally known locally which is not its specialty. For example, until recently there were a
lot of imitations of popular brand goods with the expression "KW" generally in the class of
"KW 1", "KW 2", "KW Super, etc. For this situation, businessmen must be eager to make
huge profits without having to squander money to introduce the brand to the public on the
grounds that the brand is now known by the general public. Although counterfeit products
are usually sold at a lower price than the first merchandise, it is obvious that the holder of the
popular brand will be hindered because people who objected to buying the first product will
change to buying counterfeit products.
Off-track business competition or cheating (counterfeiting and imitating brands) can lead
to a decrease in transaction turnover, consequently reducing the normal benefits of a more
well-known brand. It can even reduce the public's trust in the brand, as buyers feel that the
brand that was once accepted as having good quality has now actually started to decline in
quality. This infringement of trademark rights is also very detrimental to the buyer as the
buyer will get labor and products that are usually of inferior quality to the first and well-
known brand, and sometimes counterfeit products endanger the health and life of the buyer.
Unjustified competition identified with Intellectual Property Rights is contestation by
business people in ways that are not trustworthy or sincere in Intellectual Property Rights,
(Fandy, 1999).
Unfair competition is highly undesirable, in the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property Rights (Paris Convention for The Protections of Industrial Property) in
1938 which has been updated several times, most recently in Stockholm in 1967 and United
States has ratified the Paris Convention for the London version (London Act) of 1934 since
December 24, 1950 which is retroactive to December 27, 1949, then in 1979 United States
also ratified the 1967 Stockholm version of the Paris Convention with Presidential Decree
Number 24 of 1979 in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention states that: State parties are
bound to provide effective protection against unfair competition. Paragraph (2) stipulates that
any act contrary to "honest practices industrial and commercial matters" shall be considered
as an aggravation of unfair competition.
Legal Remedies for Business Actors Who Market Trademarks Without a License
Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trademark requires a brand name to be registered. With
the registration of a trademark as referred to in Article 3 of Law No. 15 of 2001, actually at
that time the trademark holder will be accountable for the brand name of its products. With
the aim that every maker or business person or broker has a lawful insurance guarantee for
the freedom of the brand name of the product. This is in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the United States Trademark Law, to be more specific the quick to record
standard, not the first come, first out rule. Given this guideline, a person who needs to be
privileged to a mark must request the mark in question (Utami and Adipradana, 2017).
The legitimate result assuming the party observing the mark with interest has not
registered the mark, then the other party can register the mark name with the same name and
that party will get the legitimate guarantee and assuming this happens then the main party
observing the mark will feel very hampered but cannot take any lawful action because the
mark has not been registered.
The brand name in order to satisfy its motivation and obtain a valid guarantee must be
included. Regulations regarding unregistrable and terminable marks are contained in Article
20 of the Trademark Law. If a brand is likely to hurt the entire population, then, at that time,
the mark cannot be registered. However, if the mark harms a particular party, the registration
of the mark is terminated. Or again, it can be clearly said that a mark that cannot be
registered is a mark that is unfit for use as a mark, while a terminated mark is a mark that
hinders different gatherings.
Branded businesses do not register their brands, then, they do not have legal insurance.
Where legal insurance here plays an important role with the aim that the brand has a
guarantee not to be imitated or misused or other unlawful demonstrations. Legal certainty on
behalf of the brand is utilized as a work to provide freedom to the secured party in
accordance with the commitments that have been made.
Sanctions imposed on business actors who commit infringement of brand names in
addition to using the Trademark Law, competition exploitative is delegated to criminal
demonstration in accordance with Article 382 bis of the Criminal Code. Material
demonstration is punishable by 1 (one) year and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,,
rupiah), is to carry out fraudulent demonstrations to deceive the general public or someone in
particular.
Parties who use and copy a mark that has just been registered by the owner of the rights
to a mark can cause legitimate consequences as a criminal act as referred to in Article 200
paragraph (2) of the Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications which stipulates that
any person who is not entitled to choose to use a mark that is basically the same as a
registered mark that has a place with one more party for comparable work and products made
or exchanged, will be rejected with detention for a limit of 4 (four) years. long time as well as
a maximum fine of USD. 2,,,.00 (two billion rupiah).
Moreover, the parties who caused harm to the first proprietor of the referenced mark can
file a joint claim through prosecution. The guidelines in Article 1365 of the Civil Code
stipulate that the first proprietor of the mark can file a lawsuit with the competent court,
specifically the business court, as well as through the path of non-lawsuit. To address stolen
products or counterfeit merchandise, Article 100 through Article 102 of Law Number 20
Year 2016 regulates criminal offenses identified with Trademarks and Geographical
Indications.
The result of a registered mark is that it must be used with a request for registration. The
law The trademark law requires trademark owners to directly use their marks. Assuming a
registered mark is not used in accordance with the arrangements specified in the law, the
registration of the mark in question will be canceled. The guidelines regarding the abolition
of current checks are regulated in Chapter VIII on the Abolition and Cancellation of
Trademark Registrations from Article 61 through Article 67 of the Law Number. 15 of 2001.
Conclusion
This type of legitimate infringement of the freedom of a reserved brand name as an off-
track business context can be resolved through the impersonation of a brand identity that has
similarities at a basic level, for example, introducing a logo appropriately with a unique
brand and the counterfeiting of a brand that has complete resemblance to a well-known
unique brand. A legitimate remedy for businesses that market a mark without a grant, in the
setting of Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademarks, requires businesses that market a mark to
register the brand name and additionally the administration of the mark with the Directorate
General of Intellectual Property Rights. In the event that the brand name has been included, it
will get a legal remedy, both general and criminal. Criminal remedies, according to Article
382 bis of the Criminal Code, especially material demonstrations are punishable by 1 (one)
year imprisonment and a maximum fine of USD. 900,,.00 (900,, rupiah), for Entertainers
who conduct fraudulent demonstrations to mislead the general public or an individual in
particular.
It is hoped that through this research, the Government of the Ministry of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of United States and the Directorate General of Intellectual
Property (Dirjen HKI) to provide strict sanctions for trademark infringement in accordance
with the Trademark Law in force and must also be implemented by the apparatus law
enforcement consistently. To the business actors to pay attention to the applicable laws. To
the public to be more careful in buying and using a brand of goods and services, can also
understand and know about the registration of the brand so as not to be harmed.
