A Plea of Extinctive Prescription and the Rule of Good Faith in the Past Human Rights Violation Cases - Critical Study on Supreme Court Decision 2012DA202819 delivered on May 16, 2013 -

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 825-840
Author(s):  
Ku Tae Chung ◽  
Eo Jin Kim
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Critical Study ◽  
The Past ◽  
Human Rights Violation

scholarly journals The Urgency of Trademark Registration for Business Actors (Case Study of Supreme Court Decision No 575 K / Pdt.Sus-HKI / 2020 Between Ruben Samuel Onsu vs PT Ayam Geprek Benny Sujono)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-259
Author(s):  
Nurhani Fithriah
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Business People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trademark Registration

Brand registration is very important for business people. A brand is one of the distinguishing entities between the business activities of business actors. The problem occurs when business actors already have a trademark which is then well known in the community but in fact they have not registered the trademark, as experienced by Ruben Samuel Onsu with his Geprek chicken business. However, in its development, it turns out that there are other business actors using the same mark but have registered the mark. This research was conducted using a normative method through a statutory approach and concepts. This research examines the Supreme Court's decision rejecting the appeal from Ruben Samuel Onsu and analyzes the urgency and procedures for trademark registration. Based on the research results, trademark law in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The terms and procedures for application for registration of a mark are regulated in Article 4 - Article 8 and further regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. registration of a mark and being recognized as the legal owner of the mark and rights to the mark are obtainedafter the mark is registered. Ruben Onsu's Bensu mark was declared invalid because Ruben Onsu was not the first party to register the mark, and the Supreme Court decided to cancel all trademark applications made by Ruben Onsu.

scholarly journals Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 50 P/HUM/2018 tentang Pembatalan Permenkumham Nomor 25 Tahun 2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Deno Ukida Narasoma ◽  
Iwan Permadi ◽  
Diah Aju Wisnu Wardhani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Legal Consequences

This study aimed to analyze the reasons the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 which decided the cancellation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 25 of 2017 and analyze the legal consequences of the decision on new notary candidates. This study used normative juridical with a statutory approach and historical approach. The reasons the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 were influenced by two factors, i.e., juridical and non-juridical factors. The legal consequences of the Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 for new notary candidates was the disappearance of the notary candidate’s obligation to take the notary appointment exam and the emergence of problems related to the clarity of the qualifications that should be completed to register as a notary because the ruling resulted in a legal vacuum related to the terms of the conditions in the appointment of a public notary.

Media Agendas and Human Rights: The Supreme Court Decision on Abortion

1978 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 544-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Crothers Pollock ◽  
James Lee Robinson ◽  
Mary Carmel Murray
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court

INDIRECT NETWORK EFFECTS, USAGE EXTERNALITIES, AND PLATFORM COMPETITION

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul A Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Network Effects ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Past ◽  
Indirect Network Effects ◽  
American Express ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Exclusive Focus

ABSTRACT Platforms, or two-sided markets, have become a topic of significant discussion in competition law over the past decade, culminating in the recent US Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. American Express Co. This note discusses externalities in platforms. Indirect network effects, one type of externality common on platforms, have been prominent in these discussions. However, the prominence of indirect network effects has obscured the importance of another externality that exists on platforms, a usage externality. This note argues that a near exclusive focus on indirect network effects has led to errors in identifying when a market should be analyzed as a platform. These errors implicate the identification of platforms like those at issue in Ohio v. American Express Co. as well as a wider set of platforms, such as ad-supported media platforms.

scholarly journals Penyesuaian Batasan Tindak Pidana Ringan dan Jumlah Denda Dalam Kuhp Terhadap Perkara Tindak Pidana Pencurian (Analisis Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 02 Tahun 2012 Tentang Penyesuaian Batasan Tindak Pidana Ringan dan Jumlah Denda Dalam Kuhp)

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Soma Karya Madari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Police Department ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Mutual Agreement

Abstract: Compliance of the Limitation of Minor Crimes and the Amount of Fines in Criminal Code towards Stealing Case. After the Rise of Supreme Court Decision Number 02 Year 2012, the regulation on the amount of fine in Criminal Code has been changed. Implication of this new regulation is the application of fast check in handling light stealing case which its value below 2.500.00 rupiahs, Since the regulation is only bound by Supreme Court Institution, a Mutual agreement between law enforcements institution has been made by the creating of “Mahkumjapaol” which consist of Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, Prosecutor Office and Police Department in regulating detail guidelines on the limit of fine in the minor stealing case.Abstrak: Penyesuaian Batasan Tindak Pidana Ringan dan Jumlah Denda Dalam KUHP Terhadap Perkara Tindak Pidana Pencurian. Pasca terbitnya PERMA Nomor 02 Tahun 2012 maka aturan tentang jumlah denda dalam KUHP berubah. Implikasi yang ditimbulkan dari berlakunya PERMA tersebut adalah diterapkannya pemeriksaan acara cepat dalam penanganan perkara tindak pidana pencurian ringan yang nilainya di bawah Rp. 2.500.000.00. Oleh karena Peraturan Mahkamah Agung hanya mengikat lingkungan Mahkamah Agung saja. Maka, dibuat suatu bentuk kesepahaman dengan lembaga penegak hukum lainnya melalui Forum Mahkumjapaol yang beranggotakan Mahkamah Agung, Kementerian Hukum dan HAM, Kejaksaan Agung, dan POLRI telah menyusun kerangka acuan yang lebih rinci mengenai batasan denda dalam perkara tindak pidana ringan DOI: 10.15408/jch.v1i2.3000

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document