PELINDUNGAN MEREK BERBASIS TINGKAT DAYA PEMBEDA DITINJAU DARI DOKTRIN DILUSI MEREK DI INDONESIA

Main Article Content

Yuliana Utama
Rika Ratna Permata
Ranti Fauza Mayana

Abstract

ABSTRAK
Daya pembeda merek adalah karakter atau ciri khas dari suatu tanda yang dapat dikenali oleh konsumen untuk mengindikasi asal barang dan/jasa antara satu produsen dengan produsen lainnya. Seiring perkembangan dalam masyarakat terjadi kasus-kasus yang penyelesaiannya tidak cukup hanya menggunakan pendekatan persamaan pada pokoknya/keseluruhannya melainkan memerlukan pendekatan baru yang berfokus pada daya pembeda dan dilusi merek. Penulisan ini mengkaji implementasi doktrin tingkat daya pembeda merek pada penilaian daya pembeda suatu merek dan kelebihan dan kelemahan doktrin tingkat daya pembeda merek dan teori dilusi merek dalam implementasinya di Indonesia. Penelitian menggunakan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan spesifikasi bersifat deskriptif. Hasil Kajian memperlihatkan bahwa melalui implementasi doktrin tingkat daya pembeda, ketentuan kriteria merek yang memiliki daya pembeda dapat diatur dengan mempertimbangkan makna dari kata/istilah yang digunakan dan hubungan kata tersebut dengan kelas barang dan/atau jasa merek yang bersangkutan. Kelebihan dari doktrin tingkat daya pembeda apabila diimplementasikan di Indonesia yaitu memberikan kerangka dalam menentukan kriteria merek yang memiliki daya pembeda. Kelemahan dari doktrin tingkat daya pembeda yaitu hanya menggunakan pendekatan linguistik dan idak dapat melindungi daya pembeda merek terkenal dari tindakan dilusi merek. Kelebihan penerapan doktrin dilusi merek yaitu untuk memberikan pelindungan tambahan terhadap reputasi dan keunikan daya pembeda merek terkenal dari tindakan dilusi merek. Kelemahan doktrin dilusi merek yaitu dapat memberikan pelindungan yang berlebihan terhadap merek terkenal sehingga perlu adanya pengecualian dalam ketentuan dilusi merek melalui penerapan konsep fair use.
Kata kunci: daya pembeda; dilusi merek; pelindungan merek; pelanggaran merek.


ABSTRACT
The trademark distinctiveness is a character or characteristic of a sign that can be recognized by consumers to indicate the origin of goods and/or services between one producer and another. Along with developments in society, there are several cases where the solution is not enough to simply use an similarity in essence/as a whole, but requiring a new approach that focuses on trademark distinctiveness and trademark dilution. This paper examines the implementation of the doctrine of the strength level of trademark distinctiveness in the assessment of trademark distinctiveness and the advantages and weaknesses the doctrine of strength level of trademark distinctiveness and trademark dilution in its implementation in Indonesia. This research uses a normative juridical approach with descriptive specifications. The results of the study show that through the implementation of the strength level of trademark distinctiveness doctrine, the criteria for a brand that has distinctive power can be regulated by considering the meaning of the word term used and the word's relationship with the class of goods and/or services of the brand concerned. The strength of the doctrine of the level of differentiation when implemented in Indonesia is that it provides a framework in determining the criteria for trademark distinctiveness. The weakness of the strength level of trademark distinctiveness is that it only uses a linguistic approach and cannot protect the distinguishing power of well-known trademark from trademark dilution. The advantage of applying the doctrine of trademark dilution is to provide additional protection to the reputation and uniqueness of the distinguishing power of well-known trademarks from the act of trademark dilution. The weakness of the trademark dilution doctrine is that it can provide excessive protection for well-known trademarks so that there is a need for exceptions in the provisions of brand dilution through the application of the concept of fair use.
Keywords: protection of marks; strength distinctiveness; trademark dilution; trademark fair use.

Article Details

How to Cite
Utama, Y., Permata, R. R., & Mayana, R. F. (2021). PELINDUNGAN MEREK BERBASIS TINGKAT DAYA PEMBEDA DITINJAU DARI DOKTRIN DILUSI MEREK DI INDONESIA. ACTA DIURNAL Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Kenotariatan, 5(1), 139-153. https://doi.org/10.23920/acta.v5i1.486
Section
Articles

References

Buku

Freddy Harris (et.al.), Modul Kekayaan Intelektual Lanjutan Merek Dan Indikasi Geografis, Jakarta: Kementrian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Intelektual, 2020.

Sudargo Gautama, Hukum Merek Indonesia, Bandung: PT. Alumni, 1986.


Jurnal

Adelman, Emily, “Trademark Parodies : When Is It OK to Laugh?”, The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, Volume 6: 72, 2006.

Alexandra J. Roberts, “How To Do Things With Word Marks: A Speech-Act Theory of Distinctiveness”, Alabama Law Review, Volume 65:4, 2014.

Gunnell, Justin J., “Evaluation of The Dilution-Parody Paradox in The Wake of The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006”, Cardozo Arts & Entertaiment Law Journal, Volume 21: 441, 2008.

Linford, Jake, “The False Dichotomy Between Suggestive and Descriptive Trademarks”, Ohio State Law Journal, Volume 76: 6, 2015.

McKenna, Mark P., “Teaching Trademark Theory Through the Lens Of Distinctiveness”, Saint Louis University Law Journal, Volume 52:843, 2008.

McLean, Willajeanne F., “The Birth, Death, And Renaissance Of The Doctrine Of Secondary Meaning In The Making”, The American University Law Review, Volume 42: 737, 1993.

Neil Wilkof, “Theories of Intellectual Property: Is It Worth The Effort?”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 9:4, 2014.

Nicols, Connie Davis, “Trouble in Trademark Law: How Applying Different Theories Leaves Door Open for Abuse”, SMU Science and Technology Law Review, Volume 17:1, 2014.

Pi Chan Hu, “A Linguistic Study Of The Distinctiveness of A Trademark”, NTUT Journal Of Intellectual Property L & Mgmt., Volume 3:1, 2014.

Rest, Elizabeth J, “Lost in Translations: a Critical Examination of Conflicting Decisions Applying The Doctrine Of Foreign Equivalents”, The Trademark Reporter, Volume 96:6, 2006.

Rika Ratna Permata (et.al.), “Tinjauan Kasus Tentang Dilusi Merek Di Indonesia dan Thailand”, Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, Volume 26:1, 2019.

Stasser, Mathias, “The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection Revisited: Putting the Dilution Doctrine into Context”, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, Volume X:2, 2016.

Yeh, Brian T, Protecting Famous, “Distinctive Marks: The Trademark Dilution Revision Act 2006”, The Library Of Congress, American Law Division, 2006.


Peraturan Perundang-Undangan

Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 1994 Tentang Pengesahan Agreement on Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), Lembaran Negara Nomor 95 Tahun 1994.

Undang–Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis.

Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2020 Tentang Cipta Kerja.

Trademark Dilution Revision Act (Revisi Undang-Undang Dilusi Merek Amerika Serikat).

Sumber Lain

Nike,Inc.,v. Nikepal International, Inc., [7/03/2021].

Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 184 K/Pdt.Sus-HaKI/2013, [3/03/2021].