scholarly journals Aesthetic Performance Products as a Basis For Non Novelty of Industrial Design Based on The Public Domain Principle

Notaire ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Desy Rizki Ramadhani ◽  
Puteri Melati ◽  
Camellia Anand
Keyword(s):  
Industrial Design ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Product Performance ◽  
External Appearance ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Property ◽  
Photographic Evidence ◽  
Design Law ◽  
The Aesthetic ◽  
Protection Period

Comparative products are very important and must be considered about it because, Industrial Design assesses the performance of products that can be proven from evidence that can be seen or assessed by clear eye such as photographic evidence, catalogs or other evidence that can be proved bye Industrial Design which has existed before. Industrial design is based on its external appearance which does not have an aesthetic impression and contradicts Article 1 point 1 of the Industrial Design Law and article 25 Paragraph 1 of the TRIPs agreement, which is form creation, solely for function or technical configuration. Aesthetically cannot be registered. In the absence of aesthetic elements, the product performance can be used as the basis for the absence of new industrial designs based on the principle of "Public Domain", considering the aesthetic elements are one of the requirements of an item that can be categorized as Industrial Design. In the other hand, the protection period has expired and became a "Public Domain" then it can be registered as an Industrial Design if it packed with an aesthetic elements. If an item does not have an aesthetic impression, it can be ascertained that the item is not an industrial design and can be possible not to have novelty and become public property. Aesthetic impressions do not contradict with the laws and regulations, but this is an important requirement so the design can be categorized as an industrial design. In ordinance No. 31 in 2000 concerning Industrial Design itself does not limit of the notion novelty and aesthetics so, the multiple interpretations are often occur.

scholarly journals KRITERIA TANDA PUBLIC DOMAIN YANG DIGUNAKAN SEBAGAI MEREK

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Novy Tuwaidan
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Public Knowledge ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Property ◽  
Protection Period

This study examines the Criteria for Signs of Public Domain Used as a Brand. This research is legal research by using a method that is in accordance with the scientific characteristics of Law (jurisprudence), namely normative legal research. Concluded also some signs of criteria in the Public Domain Trademark law, namely: Public Domain because it is over the protection period, the Public Domain for distinguishing the substantive requirements are not met. (Article 20 letter (f) UU No. 16/2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications), Public Domain because it includes the area of public property, Public Domain because it does not open rivalry, Public Domain because it includes Public Knowledge. Public Domain since its birth, Public Domain because of government policy, Public Domain because something that can be enjoyed by everyone at any time, Public Domain because it is a public good, and Public Domain because there is no scarcity and is available to all

scholarly journals Public Domain in Dispute Settlement of Cancellation of Industrial Design Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 30-42
Author(s):  
Muchtar Anshary Hamid Labetubun
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Industrial Design ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Roll Forming ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Public Property ◽  
Four Square ◽  
Year 2000

Economic rights in Industrial Design have protection that is limited to a period of 10 years. After the expiration of protection, Industrial Designs that previously owned exclusive rights by the holders of rights to Industrial Design become public property; so that the Industrial Design has no obligation to ask permission to the rights’ holders for Industrial Design to use the Industrial Design. This is generally referred to as Public Domain, as stipulated in Article 2 paragraph (1) and (2) of Law Number 31 Year 2000 concerning Industrial Design, that "Design rights Industry is granted for a new Industrial Design, Industrial Design is considered new if on the date of Acceptance, the Industrial Design is not the same as pre-existing disclosures”. So basically, Industrial Design has a new principle. However, in reality, there are several cases of Industrial Design in resolving disputes over Industrial Design rights that have been registered, because the Industrial Design has become Public Domain, and there has been a cancellation of Industrial Designs including Cases: Industrial Design of Oil Bottles, Industrial Design of Lighters, Industrial Design of Packaging Boxes 4 (Four) Square, Industrial Design CBK 124 Cabinets, Garuda Motorcycles, Industrial Design Disk Places, Industrial Socks Design, Industrial Design Folding Iron Door Chains and Folding Iron Door Leaves, X2 Shoe Strip Industrial Designs, and Industrial Design TMS Roll Forming Machines Machine.

scholarly journals Fairness in Fair Dealing on the Industrial Design Protection

Yuridika ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 445
Author(s):  
Sigit Nugroho ◽  
Derita Praptirahayu ◽  
Mieke Yustia Ayu Ratna Sari
Keyword(s):  
Industrial Design ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Design Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Design Protection

Fair dealing is one of the important elements in the Industrial Design Legislation. Because of that, it is significant to analyze the concept of fair dealing which can be understood by the society to achieve fairness in the protection of industrial design works. Under industrial design, the concept of fair dealing means that industrial design can be used by other parties for education and research purposes as long as it does not prejudice the interests of industrial design right holders. The purpose of this study is to analyze the value of fairness in the concept of fair dealing in industrial design law, so that it can be used as guidelines for the right holders and the public so they not violate the Industrial Design Law and this Law can also be used to advance the welfare of society. This study is normative legal research by using statute and conceptual approaches. While material used for this study are primary and secondary legal materials. This study found that fairness in the fair dealing in the protection of industrial design can be achieved in the form of fulfilment of balance rights between the designer’s right and society. Fairness for both is if between the right holder and society have the opportunities to use and enjoy available industrial design. Industrial design rights holders have limited monopoly rights and the public has the opportunity to use the results of industrial design in a limited manner for their welfare. This is in line with what Aristotle said that justice is given in accordance with values or propriety that is not the same.

Who Lives Here?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Hogh-Olesen
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Sexual Partners ◽  
Street Art ◽  
Evolutionary Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
Full Circle ◽  
Human Need ◽  
Personal Fitness ◽  
The Aesthetic

Chapter 6 follows the aesthetic impulse full circle and explores the human need to decorate objects and surroundings, as well as the marking of property and status in the public domain. Furthermore, it looks at phenomena such as folk art, street art, and graffiti. The purpose of the chapter is to show that such extravaganzas too make biological sense and thereby strengthen the argument that aesthetic behavior is natural for humans. Decorations signal personal fitness, ability, care, effort, resources, as well as power, because they ensure social status, for instance to attract more sexual partners. Like our body ornamentation, decoration is immediate communication transmitting key social and evolutionary information to the surroundings.

BRIEF COMMENTS ON STAFLEU’S PROPOSAL FOR A NEW POLITICAL ASPECT

2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-75
Author(s):  
Andrew Basden
Keyword(s):  
Public Domain ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Social Aspect ◽  
Political Aspect ◽  
The Public ◽  
Social Communities ◽  
The Social ◽  
Aesthetic Aspect ◽  
The Aesthetic

In “On the character of social communities; the state and the public domain” [Philosophia Reformata 69(2):125-39, 2004] Dick Stafleu has suggested that the social aspect as currently constituted under Dooyeweerd, covers two distinct things: ”¢ companionship ”¢ authority and discipline, and that the latter should become a new aspect, the political, placed after the economic and before the juridical. (Stafleu seems to have dispensed with the aesthetic aspect that currently lies between those two aspects, largely taking Seerveld’s line that it should be redefined and placed earlier; see footnote 9 on p.130) I would like to briefly suggest some issues that need to be discussed and resolved before his suggestion is adopted. I have long felt the tension between the two parts of Dooyeweerd’s version of the social aspect that Stafleu refers to — companionship and authority — and I think Stafleu is right to open up discussion about it. But I am not happy that his proposal either is necessary or solves the problem. Moreover, I can also understand something of Dooyeweerd’s own thinking as he kept the two together.

Rewritten or Reused? Originality, Intertextuality, and Reuse in the Writings of a Buddhist Visionary in Contemporary Tibet

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 203-231
Author(s):  
Antonio Terrone
Keyword(s):  
Public Domain ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Way

The study of Buddhist texts can inform us of the way scriptures were composed, as well as illuminate the reasons behind their production. This study examines the phenomenon of borrowing and reusing portions of texts without attributing them to their ‘legitimate authors’ within the Buddhist world of contemporary Tibet. It shows that not only is such a practice not at all infrequent and is often socially accepted, but that it is used in this case as a platform to advance specific claims and promote an explicit agenda. Therefore, rather than considering these as instances of plagiarism, this essay looks at the practice of copying and borrowing as an exercise in intertextuality, intended as the faithful retransmission of ancient truths, and as an indication of the public domain of texts in Tibet.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document