scholarly journals CONFUSION DAN PEMBATALAN MEREK OLEH PENGADILAN

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 271
Author(s):  
Indirani Wauran ◽  
Titon Slamet Kurnia
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Confusion Effect

This article criticizes the judicial review practice over trademarks infringement in Indonesia. This article argues that to be fair the court should consider the confusion effect to determine whether there is a trademarks infringement case in accordance with Art. 16.1 of the TRIPs Agreement. This article concludes that Indonesia needs to improve its legislation to meet the requirement of the TRIPs Agreement and to improve the judges quality in applying the Trademarks Law properly by considering its purpose which grants the trademark owner a protection of the trademark’s identity and a protection against confusion against unauthorized use by third parties. Artikel ini mengkritisi praktik yudisial atas kasus pelanggaran merek di Indonesia. Atas dasar itu artikel ini berargumen bahwa supaya adil maka pengadilan seyogianya mempertimbangkan efek kebingungan untuk menentukan apakah ada pelanggaran merek sesuai Art. 16.1 TRIPs Agreement. Artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa Indonesia perlu memperbaiki legislasinya supaya sesuai tuntutan TRIPs Agreement dan meningkatkan kualitas hakimnya dalam menerapkan Hukum Merek secara memadai dengan mempertimbangkan aspek purposivenya untuk memberikan kepada pemilik merek perlindungan atas identitas mereknya itu sendiri dan perlindungan atas kebingungan yang ditimbulkan oleh penggunaan merek tanpa hak oleh pihak ketiga.

EU Antitrust Procedure

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
International Level ◽  
National Courts ◽  
National Competition ◽  
The Impact

This book provides a comprehensive and practically oriented account of EU competition procedure and the European Commission’s role in enforcement, coordination, and policy-making, from the perspective of EU enforcers. It explains the Commission’s approach to each aspect of enforcement: its investigatory practices and powers, interactions with parties under investigation and third parties, compliance with fundamental rights, process by which it adopts decisions, and application of sanctions and remedies for anticompetitive conduct. Publication and judicial review of Commission decisions is also be discussed. In particular, the book provides a complete view of the Commission’s role in enforcement and coordination at the international level. Following the implementation of the Damages Directive, the book examines cooperation between the Commission and national courts, with regard to the increasing role of private enforcement actions. It emphasises the importance of cooperation between the Commission and national competition authorities (NCAs) of the Member States and consider the impact of the forthcoming Directive on empowerment of NCAs (‘ECN+’), as well as the Commission’s engagement with NCAs in third countries and the instruments which facilitate this.

scholarly journals UPAYA HUKUM YANG DILAKUKAN KORBAN KEJAHATAN DIKAJI DARI PERSPEKTIF SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA DALAM PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Lilik Mulyadi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

Positive Legal Indonesia provides protection against crime victims who are not directly in the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, as well as outside the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. Later in the Code of Criminal Procedure formulatif policies and by laws to understanding the victim used different terminology, namely the complainant, the complainant, witnesses, interested third parties and the injured party. In practice, the request made by the applicant with the PK as the quality of the witnesses, interested third parties, the Legal Adviser or by the Public Prosecutor and apparently only remedy reconsideration made by the Public Prosecutor and Third Party concerned (Judicial Review Decision No. 4 PK / PID/2000 November 28 2001), which was granted by the Supreme Court while the petition for judicial review filed applicant witnesses (Judicial Review Decision No. 11 PK/PID/2003 August 6, 2003), or the reporting witness stated by the Supreme Court was not accepted by because the applicant is not qualified to appeal judicial review. From the theoretical dimension turns doing different interpretations of the Supreme Court as provided Art. 263 paragraph (1) Criminal Procedure Code that the applicant is granted a judicial review conducted by the Public Prosecutor and the Third Party concerned on the one hand while on the other side of the applicant's application for judicial review of quality reporting victims or witnesses can not be accepted. Keywords: remedies, victims of crime, judicial review

Third party challenges to the courts' treatment of offenders

Legal Studies ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Horder
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Limited Degree

I will argue that – as an exception to the general rule adopted in England and Wales – third parties, including victims, should in some circumstances be permitted to bring proceedings for (inter alia) judicial review of sentences, and other measures, imposed on offenders. Such proceedings should not be ruled out when parts of sentences, or other orders, are meant to affect the interests of individual third parties themselves, and the prosecution cannot reasonably be expected to be solely responsible for protecting those interests. However, I will also conclude that, from a public law perspective, there is a preferable solution. Third parties who may be adversely affected by sentences or orders imposed on offenders should sometimes be given a limited degree of involvement in the process leading up to the imposition of those sentences or orders. Recent legislation takes us some way towards this goal.

scholarly journals Metamorphoses of an Adversarial Nature of Criminal Proceedings in Cases of Judicial Review

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 44-62
Author(s):  
S. V. Burmagin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Interested Party ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Subject

An adversarial nature of any judicial proceedings, which is characteristic of justice and corresponds to its nature, is revealed in criminal proceedings not only in criminal cases, but also in so called cases of judicial review exercised during pre-trial proceedings. In the present paper the features of adversarial construction of judicial review proceedings in the Russian criminal process are investigated in the context of the purpose and subject of judicial review at pre-trial stages. The author has analyzed the specifics of the conflict relationship, the essence of the legal dispute and the subject composition of the procedural parties in cases of judicial review, as well as the peculiarities of initiating the judicial review proceedings and distribution of the burden of proof between the parties; reveals the transformation of the procedural roles of the main participants of the adversarial proceedings when the disputed issue is transfered from the main proceedings in the criminal case for consideration in the procedure of judicial review within the framework of separate proceedings. The paper also elucidates such features characteristic for certain forms of judicial review as involvement of third parties having their own interest in the judicial review case and restriction of participation in the court session of the interested party. The paper focuses on the problem of ambiguous (from the standpoint of the principle of adversariality) procedural status of the prosecutor in judicial and review proceedings in which independent parties are the investigator and (or) the head of the investigative body. Alternative options for elimination of the problem discussed above are proposed. It is concluded that in the course of normative regulation of judicial review procedures and law enforcement, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of cases of judicial review and the originality of manifestation of adversarial foundation in such cases.

Malpractice & Negligence: State Supreme Courts Limit Therapists’ Duties to Third Parties

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-205
Author(s):  
Megan Cleary
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Child Sexual Abuse ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
New Hampshire ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Recovered Memories ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Repressed Memory ◽  
University Of Colorado

In recent years, the law in the area of recovered memories in child sexual abuse cases has developed rapidly. See J.K. Murray, “Repression, Memory & Suggestibility: A Call for Limitations on the Admissibility of Repressed Memory Testimony in Abuse Trials,” University of Colorado Law Review, 66 (1995): 477-522, at 479. Three cases have defined the scope of liability to third parties. The cases, decided within six months of each other, all involved lawsuits by third parties against therapists, based on treatment in which the patients recovered memories of sexual abuse. The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in Hungerford v. Jones, 722 A.2d 478 (N.H. 1998), allowed such a claim to survive, while the supreme courts in Iowa, in J.A.H. v. Wadle & Associates, 589 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 1999), and California, in Eear v. Sills, 82 Cal. Rptr. 281 (1991), rejected lawsuits brought by nonpatients for professional liability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document