Tinjauan Yuridis Pelindungan Hukum Bagi Pemilik Merek Dikaitkan Dengan Implementasi Asas Contante Justitie Dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Pidana Merek di Indonesia
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The process of resolving brand criminal cases in court still refers to the principles of good justice, including the principle of contante justitie (simple, fast, and low cost). In practice, brand criminal cases were found that did not perfectly implement the principle of contante justitie for example the case of counterfeiting the Cressida and Damor brands which was decided by way of Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number 1778/Pid.B/2011/PN.JKT.Pst. The implementation of the contante justitie principle in the process of resolving trademark criminal cases is not optimal so that legal protection for brand owners who experience violations of trademark rights is difficult to obtain legal certainty. This condition occurs because there are obstacles both in terms of positive law which have not optimally regulated the settlement of criminal cases, especially brands and parties who are less cooperative in carrying out the case settlement process and trial agenda.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Ahmad, R. (2018). Analisis Data Kualitatif. Jurnal Alhadharah, 17(33), 81–95.
Atmasasmita, R. (2010). Sistem peradilan pidana kontemporer.
Gautama, S. (1994). Hak Merek Dagang Menurut Perjanjian TRIPs-GATT dan Undang-Undang Merek RI. Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti.
Hairi, P. J. (2016). Antara Prinsip Peradilan Sederhana, Cepat dan Berbiaya Ringan dan Gagasan Pembatasan Perkara Kasasi. Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum Untuk Keadilan Dan Kesejahteraan, 2(1), 151–178.
Hamzah, A. (2006). Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Jakarta. Sinar grafika.
Harahap, M. Y. (2000). Tinjauan Merek Secara Umum dan Hukum Merek di Indonesia Berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 19 Tahun 1992.
Harianja, T., & Damanik, J. (2022). Implementasi Pengajuaan Saksi Tambahan (yang Tidak Tercantum dalam Surat Pelimpahan Perkara). Syntax Literate; Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia, 7(7), 9182–9191.
Hayuningrum, Y. W., & Roisah, K. (2015). Perlindungan Hak Ekonomi Terhadap Penggunaan Merek Dalam Perjanjian Waralaba. Law Reform, 11(2), 255–263.
Hidayah, K. (2017). Hukum Hak Kekayaan Intelektual. Setara Press.
Lindsey, T., Damian, E., Butt, S., & Utomo, T. S. (2006). Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Suatu Pengantar, Bandung: PT. PT. Alumni.
Mashdurohatun, A. (2013). Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (HKI) dalam perspektif Sejarah Indonesia. Hak Kekayaan Intelektual.
Maulana, I. B. (1997). Sukses Bisnis Melalui Merek. Paten Dan Hak Cipta, Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
Muhaimin. (2020). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Mataram University Press.
Murjiyanto, R. (2017). Konsep Kepemilikan Hak Atas Merek di Indonesia (Studi Pergeseran Sistem “Deklaratif”ke dalam Sistem “Konstitutif”). Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 24(1 SE-Articles), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol24.iss1.art3
Pasaribu, M. H. (2020). Implementasi Prinsip Peradilan Cepat, Sederhana Dan Biaya Ringan Dalam Perkara Perdata Di Pengadilan Negeri Samarinda. Journal of Law (Jurnal Ilmu Hukum), 5(2), 454–465.
Permata, R. R., Ramli, T. S., & Utama, B. (2020). Pelanggaran Merek Di Indonesia. Unpad Press.
Semaun, S. (2016). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Merek Perdagangan Barang Dan Jasa. DIKTUM: Jurnal Syariah Dan Hukum, 14(1), 108–124.
Sinurat, A., Runtung, R., Suhaidi, S., & Mulyadi, M. (2014). Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Tindak Pidana Pemalsuan Merek Pasca Berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2001 Tentang merek. USU Law Journal, 2(2), 12–25.
Sundari, E. (2015). Praktik Class Action di Indonesia. Cahaya Atma Pustaka.