scholarly journals SUSTAINIBILITY OF INDONESIA TRADEMARK LAW AS UMBRELLA LAW IN RESOLVING DOMAIN NAMES DISPUTE IN INDONESIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 193
Author(s):  
Ayup Suran Ningsih
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Important Thing ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Comprehensive Discussion

AbstractProtection regarding intellectual property in domain names becomes an important thing that must be considered by the domain name’s holder or user. Domain names are by character quite similar to trademarks since they serve as source indicators. This article is written to analyse the Suitability of Indonesia Trademarks Law as Umbrella Law in Resolving Domain Names Dispute in Indonesia. The methodology used in writing this article is normative legal research. Through the comprehensive discussion, it can be concluded that Indonesia trademark law is not suitable to resolve domain name dispute in Indonesia. A domain name is different from a mark based on Indonesia Trademark Law.  IntisariPerlindungan terkait kekayaan intelektual dalam nama domain menjadi hal penting yang harus dipertimbangkan oleh pemegang atau pengguna nama domain. Nama domain secara karakter sangat mirip dengan merek dagang karena mereka berfungsi sebagai indikator sumber. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis Kesesuaian Hukum Merek Dagang Indonesia sebagai Hukum Payung dalam Menyelesaikan Sengketa Nama Domain di Indonesia. Metodologi yang digunakan dalam penulisan artikel ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Melalui pembahasan yang komprehensif dapat disimpulkan bahwa hukum merek dagang Indonesia tidak cocok untuk menyelesaikan perselisihan nama domain di Indonesia. Nama domain berbeda dengan tanda yang diatur pada UU Merek Dagang Indonesia.

SINKRONISASI PENGATURAN NAMA DOMAIN DAN HAK MEREK DI INDONESIA

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Asawati Nugrahani ◽  
Albertus Sentot Sudarwanto
Keyword(s):  
System Optimization ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
First Principle ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Electronic Transactions

<p><strong>Abstract</strong></p><p>This study discusses the synchronization of domain name and Trademark regulation in Indonesia. This</p><p>research is normative legal research is prescriptive to vertical and horizontal level of synchronization. The approach used in this legal research is the statue approach and the conceptual approach (conseptual</p><p>approach). The source of research can be distinguished to be a source of research in the form of primary</p><p>legal materials in the form of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications, Law Number 11 Year 2008 juncto 19 Year 2016 on Information and Electronic Transactions and its regulations below.</p><p>Secondary legal material from the doctrines of jurists, and other non-legal materials. The results showed</p><p>that both regulation have not been there any match between one another. First, in terms of registration</p><p>of the first principle to the legal file of the Trademark and the principle of domain name registration is first file first serve is a different principle so that many disputes after the domain name obtained. Second, interms of ownership, domain names obtained on lease are not the same objects as Trademarks so they</p><p>can not be equalized. Sync can be done by adding settings on whois system optimization and revising</p><p>the domain name law.</p><p><strong>Keywords: </strong>Domain name, Trademark, legal concept</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Abstrak</strong></p><p>Penelitian ini membahas tentang sinkronisasi pengaturan nama domain dan hak merek di Indonesia.</p><p>Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif bersifat preskriptif terhadap taraf sinkronisasi vertikal</p><p>dan horizontal. Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian hukum ini adalah pendekatan undangundang</p><p>(statue approach) dan pendekatan konseptual (conseptual approach). Sumber penelitian dapat</p><p>dibedakan menjadi sumber penelitian yang berupa bahan hukum primer berupa Undang –Undang Nomor</p><p>20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis , Undang- Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 juncto 19</p><p>Tahun 2016 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik beserta peraturan- peraturan dibawahnya. Bahan</p><p>hukum sekunder dari doktrin-doktrin para ahli hukum, dan bahan non-hukum lainnya. Hasil penelitian</p><p>menunjukkan bahwa kedua pengaturan tersebut belum terdapat adanya kesesuaian antara satu dengan</p><p>yang lainnya. Pertama, dilihat dari segi pendaftarannya asas first to file hukum merek dan asas pendaftaran nama domain yaitu first file first serve merupakan asas yang berbeda sehingga dapat banyak sengketa setelah nama domain didapatkan. Kedua, dilihat dari kepemilikannya, nama domain didapatkan secara sewa bukan merupakan objek yang sama dengan merek sehingga keduanya tidak dapat dipersamakan. Sinkronisasi dapat dilakukan dengan menambahkan pengaturan mengenai optimaliasi sitem whois dan merevisi undang- undang nama domain.</p><p><strong>Kata Kunci : </strong>nama domain, merek, sinkronisasi</p>

scholarly journals SZANSE ARBITRAŻU W ROZWIĄZYWANIU SPORÓW NA TLE DOMEN INTERNETOWYCH

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Lavinia Brancus-Cieślak
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Uniform Domain ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Legal Validity ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Civil Court ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment

The Chances of the Arbitration in the Solutions of Disputes Regarding Internet Domain NamesSummaryThe paper deals with the Polish alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for internet domain names, which was introduced in January 2003 together with the establishment of a special Court of Arbitration. The Court acts within the Polish Chamber of Informatics, Technology and Telecommunication and it is based on a procedure drawn upon the well known UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy). The latter is actually applied by the main international organizations, e. g. such as Worldwide Intellectual Property Organisation.The analysis focuses on the main procedural issues, such as type of conflicts that can be an object of the court examination, claims to be raised by the plaintiff, legal validity of the verdicts. Similarly to UDRP, the Polish proceedings provide only to the domain name’s cancellation or its transfer for the benefit of the entitled person. The decision rendered by the Court acquires its full juridical force only after the ascertainment of its enforceability by an ordinary civil court. This means, that theoretically each proceedings concluded with a decision of the Court of Arbitration, should be followed by a compulsory formal examination in front of an ordinary court. Due to this, the Polish ADR seems to bring more juridical safety than the above-mentioned UDRP, yet the proceedings might be in practice protracted. In addition, such „enforced” decision would possess validity in law, in respect of the establishment of all facts, which could be further used as a ground to potential claims for damages or unjustified enrichment. 

Exporting Trademark Confusion

2011 ◽  
pp. 113-160
Author(s):  
Ann Bartow
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Trademark Infringement ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
Trademark Dilution ◽  
Typical Consumer

A judicial determination of “likelihood of confusion” is the linchpin of successful trademark infringement actions in the United States, and is often useful to prevail on a trademark dilution cause of action as well. Such determinations are exceedingly subjective, and often seem premised on a very low estimation of the intelligence and powers of discernment of the typical consumer. Many appear virtually pretextual, simply adopted as a necessary step in “protecting” trademarks and according trademark holders broad property-like rights that can impair competition and silence free speech. Though seemingly irrational and generally socially undesirable, U.S. “likelihood of confusion” jurisprudence has gained a foothold in cyberspace through dispute-resolution procedures addressing disputes about Internet domain names. In consequence, trademark holders generally prevail and are increasingly seen as holding inchoate rights in any domain name containing, alluding to, or similar to their trademarks across the globe, even though U.S. trademark law logically should not have extraterritorial application.

scholarly journals Perlindungan Aset Lokal Yang Belum Terdaftar Indikasi Geografis Dari Kejahatan Cybersquatting

Acta Comitas ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 504
Author(s):  
Ni Komang Cempaka Dewi ◽  
Putu Tuni Cakabawa Landra
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Geographical Indication ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
The Right

Many local Indonesian assets have not been protected by Geographical Indications and very vulnerable to being exploited by irresponsible parties, one of which is cybersquatting crime by registering a website address on the internet using the name of a geographically indicated product without the right as the legal owner then selling the domain name for expensive price causing losses for local Indonesian assets that have not been registered with Geographical Indications. The problem of this research: How is the legal protection on local assets that have not yet registered as Geogragraphical Indication from cybersquatting crime. The purpose of this research is to find out the legal protection of unregistered local asset as geographical indication product from cybersquatting. The legal research method used is the normative legal research method using the statutory approach and the conceptual approach. The result of the research is the protection of local assets from cybersquatting crimes that have not been protected by Geographical Indications is protected under Article 23 of the ITE Law and for every person whose rights are violated due to cybersquatting crimes, they have the right to file a lawsuit to cancel the unauthorized use of domain names by other parties.

scholarly journals Trademark.com: Trademark Law in Cyberspace

1969 ◽  
pp. 991
Author(s):  
Lisa Katz Jones
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Detailed Explanation ◽  
Internet Users ◽  
Significant Difference

his article examines the current issues in trademark law surrounding internet domain names. The author introduces the topic with a detailed explanation of the use and purpose of domain names, the significance of the various levels in domain names and how domain names compare and contract mth IP addresses. Of significant difference is the use of words and names in domain names. Organizations often use recognizable and familiar names to improve the chance Internet users will access their websites. Trademark issues are sparked by the battle to obtain and/or retain these highly sought after domain names. The author discusses the areas of conflict when: I) a domain name is registered by an individual who has no connection with the mark, 2) two or more organizations have claims to the same domain name, 3) one domain name is confusingly similar to another, and 4) when second level domain names can be assigned to multiple first level domain names. Two essential legal issues are identified: whether domain names are protectable as trademarks and whether a domain name can violate a trademark. Courts have used the analogy of telephone mnemonics to help answer these issues in favour of recognizing mnemonics as a protectable trademark, although there is split authority on how much protection can be given to domain names that incorporate generic terms. Trends in litigation in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom are discussed. Despite the de facto judicial power given to NSIfor dispute resolution, the author identifies fundamental flaws of the NSI policy owing the current controversies over Internet domain names. The article concludes with a discussion of several major proposals to implement changes regarding domain names allocation.

Summary of Results

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Kuenzler
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Networked Economy

The persuasive force of the accepted account’s property logic has driven antitrust and intellectual property law jurisprudence for at least the past three decades. It has been through the theory of trademark ownership and the commercial strategy of branding that these laws led the courts to comprehend markets as fundamentally bifurcated—as operating according to discrete types of interbrand and intrabrand competition—a division that had an effect far beyond the confines of trademark law and resonates today in the way government agencies and courts evaluate the emerging challenges of the networked economy along the previously introduced distinction between intertype and intratype competition. While the government in its appeal to the Supreme Court in ...

Structure and Organization of the Domain Name System

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Bettinger
Keyword(s):  
Host Computer ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Domain Name System ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Global Regulation ◽  
Ip Address ◽  
Domain Names ◽  
Data Packets ◽  
System P ◽  
Administrative Tasks

Although the Internet has no cross-organizational, financial, or operational management responsible for the entire Internet, certain administrative tasks are coordinated centrally. Among the most important organizational tasks that require global regulation is the management of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and their corresponding domain names. The IP address consists of an existing 32 bit (IP4) or 128 bit (IP6) sequence of digits and is the actual physical network address by which routing on the Internet takes place and which will ensure that the data packets reach the correct host computer.

Artificial Intelligence and Trademark Assessment

2021 ◽  
pp. 266-291
Author(s):  
Anke Moerland ◽  
Conrado Freitas
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Interview Data ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Unfair Advantage ◽  
Present Information ◽  
Near Future

Artificial intelligence (AI) has an unparalleled potential for facilitating intellectual property (IP) administration processes, in particular in the context of examining trademark applications and assessing prior marks in opposition and infringement proceedings. Several stakeholders have developed AI-based algorithms that are claimed to enhance the productivity of trademark professionals by carrying out, without human input, (parts of) the legal tests required to register a trademark, oppose it, or claim an infringement thereof. The goal of this chapter is to assess the functionality of the AI tools currently used and to highlight the possible limitations of AI tools to carry out autonomously the legal tests enshrined in trademark law. In fact, many of these tests are rather subjective and highly depend on the facts of the case, such as an assessment of the distinctive character of a mark, whether the relevant public is likely to be confused or whether a third party has taken unfair advantage of a mark. The chapter uses doctrinal research methods and interview data with fourteen stakeholders in the field. It finds that AI tools are so far unable to reflect the nuances of the subjective legal tests in trademark law and, it is argued, even in the near future, AI tools are likely to carry out merely parts of the legal tests and present information that a human will have to assess, taking prior doctrine and the circumstances of the case into account.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document