| Home

Overview


Original Research

APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF FOREIGN EQUIVALENTS IN THE CASE OF BRANDS IN INDONESIA (CASE STUDY OF VERDICT NUMBER 118 PK/PDT.SUS-HKI/2014)

SUSY TAN 1, MELLA ISMELINA FARMA RAHAYU 2, and ARIAWAN GUNADI 3.

Vol 17, No 11 ( 2022 )   |  DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7359298   |   Author Affiliation: Tarumanagara University 1,2,3.   |   Licensing: CC 4.0   |   Pg no: 1412-1438   |   To cite: SUSY TAN, et al., (2022). APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF FOREIGN EQUIVALENTS IN THE CASE OF BRANDS IN INDONESIA (CASE STUDY OF VERDICT NUMBER 118 PK/PDT.SUS-HKI/2014). 17(11), 1412–1438. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7359298   |   Published on: 24-11-2022

Abstract

The right to a Mark is an exclusive right granted by the state to the owner of a registered Mark. However, the Trademark Law in Indonesia has not provided legal certainty regarding trademarks that cannot be registered. One of the reasons is because the 2016 Trademark Law does not clearly mention and regulate the Doctrine of Foreign Language Equivalent Matching or FDE. The issue to be raised in this study is how to apply FDE in the case of brands in Indonesia. The goal is to find out and analyze the application of FDE in the case of brands in Indonesia. This research is carried out using a normative juridical approach (legal research), the nature of this research is descriptive research, where descriptive research is also classified as normative judicial research or literature law research. Library materials and other data as the main research material will be studied in depth regarding the application of the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents in the case of brands in Indonesia, especially in the Kopitiam Verdict. The Panel of Judges in the Case of "Lau Kopitiam" against "KOPITIAM" in this case is considered to be khilaf because it gives considerations that are contrary to its own considerations in the section of the CONVENTION, especially IN THE EXCEPTION, namely regarding the exception filed by the PK Applicant, where the PK Applicant declares that the PK Respondent has no legal standing or is not an interested party under the provisions of Article 68 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 15 of 2001. Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents needs to be added immediately to the laws and regulations regarding brands in Indonesia. If the doctrine is not clearly included and stated in the trademark law in the future, then legal certainty for owners of foreign-language marks registered in Indonesia will still not be guaranteed legal certainty.


Keywords

Intellectual Property Rights Law, Trademarks, Legal Certainty, Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents