MEKANISME PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA PELANGGARAN HAK CIPTA MELALUI ARBITRASE

A copyright violation occurs when someone makes an announcement or reproduction of a work without permission from the creator or copyright holder. If this happens, the creator or copyright holder can bring his dispute to be resolved through alternative dispute resolution or arbitration. However, the Law No. 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright does not regulate the mechanism for resolving copyright disputes through arbitration. The purpose of this study is to determine the mechanism for resolving disputes over copyright infringement through arbitration and the mechanism for canceling decisions on resolving disputes over copyright infringement through arbitration. This research uses normative legal research. From the results of the study, the initial stage of the mechanism of resolving disputes over copyright infringement through arbitration begins with the submission of the request for arbitration. Furthermore, the applicant makes a claim letter and proceed with the selection and appointment of the arbitrator. Then the arbitration examination. The final stage of the trial in arbitration is the submission of the award to the parties, and continued with the implementation of the arbitration award. An arbitration award can be requested to be canceled. The mechanism for cancellation of a national arbitration award begins by registering an arbitration award for cancellation at the Registrar's Office of the District Court. Then the court will examine the facts about whether or not the reasons stated by the applicant to cancel the arbitration award. If no, the application is rejected, but if the facts are found, the court is only authorized to cancel part of the arbitration award.

Download Full-text

KEWENANGAN PENGADILAN DALAM PEMBATALAN PUTUSAN ARBITRASE INTERNASIONAL DI INDONESIA

Jurnal Privat Law ◽

10.20961/privat.v5i2.19384 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. 26

Author(s):

Yuanita Permatasari ◽

Pranoto ,

Keyword(s):

Dispute Resolution ◽

Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽

District Court ◽

International Arbitration ◽

Legal Research ◽

Recognition And Enforcement ◽

Materials Used ◽

Legal Substances ◽

Arbitration Award

Abstract This article aims to find out the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration award in Indonesia, as well as the authority of the courts in annulment the international arbitration award in Indonesia. This research is a normative and prescriptive legal research. The type and source of materials used is the source of secondary legal material. The legal substances used in this study are of two kinds, namely primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. The method of collecting legal materials in this study is obtained through assessment of existing libraries, books, law journals, and court awards. Based on the result of the discussion, it can be concluded: Firstly, the international arbitration award can be recognized and enforced if the award is registered and obtain an execution from the Central Jakarta District Court. International arbitration rulings can only be recognized and enforced if they full fil the conditions in Article 66 of Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution law. Second, the international arbitration award is final and binding. However, in reality many international arbitration awards are requested for annulment to the Court in Indonesia.Keywords: international arbitration award, annulment of international arbitration award, enforcement of international arbitration awardAbstrak Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengakuan dan pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional di Indonesia, serta kewenangan pengadilan dalam membatalkan putusan arbitrase internasional di Indonesia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif bersifat preskriptif. Pendekatan yang digunakan penulis adalah pendekatan kasus. Sumber bahan hukum yang digunakan adalah bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder, dengan teknik analisis bahan hukum menggunakan metode silogisme dan interpretasi dengan menggunakan pola berpikir deduktif. Berdasarkan hasil pembahasan dapat disimpulkan: Pertama, agar putusan arbitrase internasional dapat diakui dan dilaksanakan, maka putusan tersebut harus terlebih dahulu didaftarkan dan memperoleh exequatur dari Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat. Putusan arbitrase internasional hanya dapat diakui dan dilaksanakan apabila memenuhi syarat-syarat yang ditentukan dalam Pasal 66 Undang-Undang Nomor. 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa. Kedua, putusan arbitrase internasional bersifat final and binding. Sehingga, putusan arbitrase internasional tidak dapat diajukan upaya pembatalan putusan arbitrase. Namun, dalam realitanya banyak putusan arbitrase internasional yang dimintakan pembatalannya kepada Pengadilan di Indonesia.Kata Kunci: putusan arbitrase internasional, pembatalan putusan arbitrase internasional, pelaksanaan putusan arbitrase internasional

Download Full-text

JURIDIS ANALYSIS OF CONFLICT COMPETENCY OF BUSINESS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT THROUGH ARBITRATION AND GENERAL JUSTICE IN STOCK OWNERSHIP

JURNAL ILMIAH LIVING LAW ◽

10.30997/jill.v9i1.1018 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Edi Prayitno ◽

Martin Roestamy

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Dispute Resolution ◽

Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

District Court ◽

Court Decisions ◽

Legal Research ◽

Actual Case ◽

Arbitration Clause ◽

Investment Agreement

This Thesis was written based on the result of legal research that analyzes conflict of business dispute resolution between arbitration and litigation in accordance with the applicable regulation and court decisions which have acquired permanent legal force. The method used in this legal research is normative legal methods. The study of literature as a basis of the research and according to Law Number 30 Years 1999 about Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, in Article 3 and Article 11 of the Law have expressively stated that District Court does not have the authority to adjudicate disputes between the parties that bound by the arbitration agreement. The result of this legal research is that arbitration clause as stated in business investment agreement that should be absolute competencies to resolve the dispute, but the Decision of District Court Judges which have been strengthened by Supreme Court of Indonesia expressively stated that the court has the authority to check and adjudicate the dispute even it has arbitration clause or arbitration agreement with the reason that the dispute is a tort and there are another parties beside the party who sign the Investment Agreement, in the suit. The court attitude that adjudicate the dispute with arbitration clause lead to conflict of competency and never ending adjudication process of business dispute. From the actual case that researcher has been analyzes, researcher suggest that Supreme Court of Indonesia as the highest judicial body must respect arbitration body by rejecting all of the civil cases that have arbitration clause on its agreement. Law Number 48 Years 2009 about Judicial Power stated that non-litigation dispute resolution is conducted through arbitration or alternative dispute resolution. Based on pacta sun servanda and choice of forum principles on the agreement binding to the parties and must be obeyed by the parties.KeyWord : : Arbitration Clause, Pacta Sun Servanda Principle, Business.

Download Full-text

UPAYA HUKUM BAGI PIHAK YANG MENOLAK PUTUSAN ARBITRASE AD-HOC

Solusi ◽

10.36546/solusi.v17i3.217 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 247-257

Author(s):

Farrah Rizky Amelia Mirza

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Dispute Resolution ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽

Ad Hoc ◽

District Court ◽

Legal Requirements ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Arbitration Award

Dispute resolution through alternative channels is arbitration known since the conflict with Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Arbitration is a method of civil approval outside the general court made based on an arbitration agreement made by the parties to the dispute. Ad-hoc arbitration is an arbitration specifically designed to resolve or reduce certain disputes, or in other words, ad-hoc arbitration is incidental. Arbitration decisions can be returned if it is agreed to contain no-no in Article 70 letter (a), (b), (c) Law Number 30 Year 1999. Can be proven by one of the disadvantaged parties, it can be asked. Cancellation to the Chair of the District Court and being received by the Chair of the Supreme Court requesting an examination of the cancellation of the arbitration award at the first and last level. The Judicial Review (PK) can also be used in arbitration disputes that have permanent legal requirements, asking PK to be asked to the Supreme Court, which is submitted requesting PK to approve the arbitration decision, will be the decision of the Chair of the District Court to support the cancellation of the award.

Download Full-text

Penyelesaian Sengketa Para Pihak Yang Telah Terikat Dalam Perjanjian Arbitrase (Studi Kasus Di Pengadilan Negeri Denpasar)

Jurnal Analogi Hukum ◽

10.22225/ah.2.1.1615.119-123 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 119-123

Author(s):

Ni Made Intan Maharani ◽

Anak Agung Sagung Laksmi Dewi ◽

Luh Putu Suryani

Keyword(s):

Dispute Resolution ◽

Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽

Class I ◽

District Court ◽

Legal Research ◽

Legal Relationship ◽

The Way

Aside from going through the courts, there are alternatives that can be passed through the dispute, namely negotiation, mediation and arbitration. Arbitration institutions are bodies chosen by the parties to the dispute to provide decisions regarding certain disputes, these institutions can also provide a binding opinion of a legal relationship from matters that have not arisen yet. The formulation of the problem raised in this study is how this arrangement for dispute resolution of parties who have been bound in an arbitration agreement, as well as how the judges' legal considerations in resolving disputes in an arbitration agreement. This research is a normative legal research. Arrangement for dispute resolution of parties that have been bound in the arbitration agreement is contained in law number 30 of 1999 concerning arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, in which the dispute resolution is handed over by professional Arbitrators who will act as judges or private courts who will apply the procedure the way the peace law has been mutually agreed upon by the parties to arrive at a final and binding decision. Judge's Legal Considerations in the Case Verdict of the Denpasar District Court Class I A Number 3/Pdt.G/2017/PN.Dps. that is based on Article 3 of Law Number 30 of 1999 Concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, which states that the District Court is not authorized to adjudicate disputes of parties who have been bound in an arbitration agreement Selain melalui pengadilan, teruntuk mengatasi kasus sengketa ada suatu alternatif yang dapat dilalui, yaitu dengan cara negosiasi, mediasi, dan arbitrase. Lembaga arbitrase merupakan badan yang dipilih oleh para pihak yang bersengketa untuk memberikan putusan mengenai sengketa tertentu, lembaga tersebut juga dapat memberikan pendapat yang mengikat dari sebuah keterkaitan hukum dari hal yang belum timbul sengketa. Adapun rumusan masalah yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana ini pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa para pihak yang telah terikat dalam perjanjian arbitrase, serta bagaimana pertimbangan hukum hakim dalam penyelesaian sengketa dalam perjanjian arbitrase. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normative. Pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa para pihak yang telah terikat dalam perjanjian arbitrase yaitu terdapat pada undang-undang nomor 30 tahun 1999 tentang arbitarse dan alternatif penyelesaian sengketa umum, yang dimana penyelesaian sengketa tersebut diserahkan Arbiter yang profesional yang akan bertindak sebagai hakim atau peradilan swasta yang akan menerapkan tata cara hukum perdamaian yang telah disepakati bersama oleh para pihak tersebut untuk sampai pada putusan yang final dan mengikat. Pertimbangan Hukum Hakim Dalam Putusan Perkara Pengadilan Negeri Denpasar Kelas I A Nomor 3/Pdt.G/2017/PN.Dps. yaitu didasarkan pada Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase Dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa, yang menyatakan bahwa Pengadilan Negeri tidak berwenang untuk mengadili sengketa para pihak yang telah terikat dalam perjanjian arbitrase.

Download Full-text

Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase oleh Pengadilan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014

Jurnal Konstitusi ◽

10.31078/jk1441 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 14 (4) ◽

pp. 701 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Tri Ariprabowo ◽

R. Nazriyah

Keyword(s):

Dispute Resolution ◽

Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽

Court Decision ◽

District Court ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Binding Force ◽

Arbitral Award ◽

Legal Uncertainty ◽

Mutual Agreement ◽

Arbitration Award

Kewenangan pengadilan dalam proses penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase antara lain, putusan arbitrase harus didaftarkan di Pengadilan Negeri. Menurut Mahkamah, Penjelasan Pasal 70 Undang-Undang Nomor 30 tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa (UU AAPS) menambah norma baru dan menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum. Pasal 70 UU AAPS tersebut sudah cukup jelas (expressis verbis), yang justru menimbulkan multi tafsir adalah penjelasan pasal tersebut sehingga menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum yang adil. Mahkamah menyatakan bahwa, Penjelasan Pasal 70 UU AAPS bertentangan dengan Pasal 28 ayat (1) UUD 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan mengikat. Dengan adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014, bagi para pihak yang tidak puas terhadap putusan arbitrase mempunyai peluang yang lebar untuk dapat pengajukan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase tanpa harus dibuktikan terlebih dahulu di Pengadilan. Hak para pihak untuk mengajukan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 70 UU AAPS dapat dikesampingkan berdasarkan kesepakatan bersama para pihak. Dengan demikian putusan arbitrase yang merupakan mahkota seorang Arbiter tidak mudah “tercabik” oleh suatu kepentingan. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014 harus diapresiasi dan secepatnya direspon oleh pembentuk undang-undang untuk merevisi UU No. 30 Tahun 1999 terkait dengan mekanisme pembatalan putusan arbitrase setelah adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut.The jurisdiction of the court in the process of resolving disputes through arbitration among other arbitral rulings shall be registered in the district court. According to the Court, the Explanation of Article 70 of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Act AAPS) adds new norms and creates legal uncertainty. Article 70 of the AAPS Act is quite clear (expressis verbis), the thing which leads to multiple interpretations is an explanation of the article so that this rises fair legal uncertainty. It stated that, Explanation of Article 70 of AAPS Law is contrary to Article 28 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and has no binding force. By the decision of the Constitutional CourtNumber 15/PUUXII/2014, for the parties which are not satisfied with the arbitration decision, this provides wide opportunities to pursue cancellation request of arbitral decision without having been proofed in court. The rights of the parties to apply for the cancellation of an arbitral award under Article 70 of AAPS Law may be waived by mutual agreement of the parties. Thus the arbitration award which is the crown of an arbitrator does not easily "torn apart" by an interest.Constitutional Court decision should be appreciated and quickly responded to by the legislators to revise Law No. 30, 1999 related to the cancellation mechanism arbitration decision after the decision of the Constitutional Court.

Download Full-text

Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Nasional Oleh Pengadilan Negeri

JURNAL CITA HUKUM ◽

10.15408/jch.v1i2.1472 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Muhammad Andriansyah

Keyword(s):

Dispute Resolution ◽

Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽

The Other ◽

Court Decision ◽

District Court ◽

The South ◽

Arbitration Award

Abstract: The National Arbitration Award Cancellation By Court. Article 70 of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, stating that the award can only be canceled if it is thought to contain elements of letter/false documents, or documents found hidden by the other party, or a decision that is taken from the results of deceit trick performed by one of the parties in the dispute. To prove whether or not one of the above three elements must be proved by a court decision. If the District Court stated that the reasons are evident, then the arbitration award may be canceled, if not proven, the Court should reject the application for cancellation of the arbitration decision. But in practice, there is still the District Court received the request for cancellation of arbitration outside the context of Article 70 of Law No. 30 of 1999 as stated in the South Jakarta District Court. Abstrak: Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase Nasional Oleh Pengadilan Negeri. Pasal 70 Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa, menyatakan bahwa putusan arbitrase hanya dapat dibatalkan jika diduga mengandung unsur-unsur surat/dokumen palsu, atau ditemukan dokumen yang disembunyikan oleh pihak lawan, atau putusan yang diambil dari hasil tipu muslihat yang dilakukan oleh salah satu pihak dalam pemeriksaan sengketa. Untuk membuktikan ada atau tidaknya salah satu dari tiga unsur diatas harus dibuktikan dengan putusan pengadilan. Apabila Pengadilan Negeri menyatakan bahwa alasan-alasan tersebut terbukti, maka putusan arbitrase dapat dibatalkan, apabila tidak terbukti, maka Pengadilan Negeri harus menolak permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase. Akan tetapi dalam pelaksanaannya, Pengadilan Negeri masih ada yang menerima permohonan pembatalan arbitrase di luar konteks pasal 70 Undang-Undang No 30 Tahun 1999 sebagaimana tertuang dalam putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan. DOI: 10.15408/jch.v1i2.1472

Download Full-text

PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA KOMPETENSI ABSOLUT ANTARA ARBITRASE DAN PENGADILAN

Jurnal Yudisial ◽

10.29123/jy.v10i2.142 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 115

Author(s):

Cut Memi

Keyword(s):

Dispute Resolution ◽

Research Methods ◽

Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽

The Other ◽

Court Decision ◽

District Court ◽

Legal Research ◽

National Board ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Case Based

ABSTRAKPasal 3 Undang-Undang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa menyatakan bahwa pengadilan negeri tidak berwenang untuk mengadili sengketa para pihak yang telah terikat dengan perjanjian arbitrase, akan tetapi sampai saat ini masih saja terdapat pertentangan kompetensi absolut antara arbitrase dan pengadilan. Sebagai contoh dan sekaligus fokus dalam pembahasan tulisan ini adalah dalam hal penanganan perkara antara PT B melawan PT CTPI. Metode yang digunakan dalam kajian ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif. Berdasarkan Putusan Nomor 10/PDT.G/2010/PN.JKT.PST, perkara ini telah diputus oleh pengadilan dengan menyatakan bahwa Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat berwenang mengadili perkara bahkan putusan ini kemudian dikuatkan sampai tingkat peninjauan kembali di Mahkamah Agung berdasarkan Putusan Nomor 238 PK/PDT/2014. Sementara di pihak lain perkara ini juga diputus oleh Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia (BANI) dengan Putusan Nomor 547/XI/ARB-BANI/2013 yang menyatakan bahwa BANI berwenang dalam mengadili perkara yang sama. Pertentangan kompetensi absolut antara dua lembaga tersebut tentu perlu diselesaikan dengan menentukan lembaga mana yang sebenarnya berwenang dalam menangani perkara bersangkutan. Berdasarkan kajian yang dilakukan dalam tulisan ini, diperoleh jawaban bahwa yang berwenang dalam mengadili perkara PT B melawan PT CTPI adalah BANI bukan pengadilan.Kata kunci: kompetensi absolut, arbitrase, pengadilan. ABSTRACTArticle 3 of Law on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution states that the district court is unlawful to decide dispute of parties bound by arbitration agreements, but to date, such absolute competence dispute between arbitration tribunal and court of law is still occurring. As an example, as well as the focus of discussion in this analysis is the case between PT B against PT CTPI. This study uses normative legal research methods. Based on Court Decision Number 10/PDT.G/2010/PN.JKT.PST, it was decided that the District Court of Central Jakarta has the authority to adjudicate the case. In fact, this decision is subsequently filed for an extraordinary request for review in the Supreme Court based on Court Decision Number 238 PK/PDT/2014. On the other hand, the case is also arbitrated by Indonesia National Board of Arbitration (BANI) by Arbitral Award Number 547/XI/ARB-BANI/2013 confirming its authority to adjudicate the same case. The absolute competence dispute between the two parties need to be resolved by determining which party is actually authorized in settling the case. Based on the analysis in this paper, it can be concluded that the case between PT B against PT CTPI is the authority of arbitration tribunal (BANI) to arbitrate, not court of law. Keywords: absolute competence, arbitration tribunal, court of law.

Download Full-text

Kewenangan Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen (BPSK) dalam Menyelesaikan Sengketa Asuransi Pasca Keluarnya Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK) Nomor 1/POJK.07/2014

JURNAL MERCATORIA ◽

10.31289/mercatoria.v12i2.2748 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 102

Author(s):

Wisnu Kumala ◽

Yaswirman Yaswirman ◽

Ulfanora Ulfanora

Keyword(s):

Dispute Resolution ◽

Consumer Protection ◽

Financial Services ◽

Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

Legal Research ◽

Research Results ◽

Consumer Protection Act ◽

Legal Effect ◽

Legal Consequences

There is a tug of authority in resolving insurance disputes outside the court between the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) based on Law Nomor 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection with Alternative Dispute Resolution Institutions (LAPS) based on Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 1/POJK.07/2014. This encourages the author to conduct legal research in order to determine the authority of BPSK in resolving insurance disputes as well as the legal consequences of the decision after the issuance of the Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 1/POJK.07/2014 using the statutory approach. This legal research results in the finding that BPSK is still authorized to settle insurance disputes following the issuance of the Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 1/POJK.07/2014, this is based on the provisions of the Lex superior derogat legi inferiori principle. Then there is no legal effect on the BPSK decision after the issuance of the Financial Services Authority Regulation. This is because BPSK's decision has been based on Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection, whose position is higher than the Regulation of the Financial Services Authority. So there is no need for BPSK to follow the provisions of the regulations whose hierarchy of legislation is lower than the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore BPSK's decision is "final and binding" as explained in Article 54 paragraph 3 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Download Full-text

KEWENANGAN BADAN PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA KONSUMEN DALAM MENANGANI SENGKETA ANTARA PT. SINAR MENARA DELI DENGAN SARI ALAMSYAH

Jurnal Hukum Adigama ◽

10.24912/adigama.v2i2.6538 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 392

Author(s):

Samuel Samuel ◽

Siti Nurbaiti

Keyword(s):

Dispute Resolution ◽

Consumer Protection ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

Secondary Data ◽

District Court ◽

Primary Data ◽

Legal Research ◽

Consumer Protection Act ◽

The Law ◽

The Republic

In principle, the resolution of consumer disputes can be pursued peacefully. through an alternative mediation dispute resolution. In Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection and Regulation of the Minister of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia Number 6 / M-DAG / PER / 2017 concerning the Consumer Dispute Settlement Body does not impose limits on the authority of BPSK in handling and adjudicating a consumer dispute. However, in reality many times the decisions of the Consumer Dispute Settlement Body (BPSK) are submitted to the district court and stated that BPSK is not authorized to handle such disputes. How is the authority of the Consumer Dispute Resolution Board in handling disputes between PT. Sinar Menara Deli and Sari Alamsyah are the issues discussed. The method used in this research is descriptive normative legal research, using secondary data and primary data as supporting data with the law approach. The results of the study illustrate that BPSK is not authorized to handle disputes between PT. Sinar Menara Deli with Sari Alamsyah, because the business actors in this dispute have submitted a refusal to be resolved through BPSK and not achieving the requirements for consumer disputes. It is recommended that BPSK members pay more attention to the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act and other regulations concerning the Consumer Dispute Settlement Body.

Download Full-text

Penyelesaian Perkara Pelanggaran Hak atas Merek

Jurnal Preferensi Hukum ◽

10.22225/jph.1.2.2343.67-71 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 67-71

Author(s):

I Gede Mahendra Juliana Adiputra ◽

Ida Ayu Putu Widiati ◽

Ni Made Puspasutari Ujianti

Keyword(s):

Dispute Resolution ◽

Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽

Research Method ◽

Legal Protection ◽

Geographical Indications ◽

Legal Research ◽

The Law ◽

The Right ◽

Mutual Agreement

The existence of competition causes the original brand owner to feel disadvantaged because the sales result has decreased. It is permissible for someone to use another party's mark as long as they ask permission from the trademark owner first. The owner can give trademark rights to other people as agreed in an agreement. The formulation of the problem in this research is as follows: how is the legal protection of trademark rights and how to resolve violations of trademark rights. The research method used in this research is normative legal research. The results of the discussion in this study are as follows: Legal protection of the right to a trademark has been regulated by Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications, in the provisions of the Law it is expressly stated that if it has been registered in the law that the right to a trademark has been protected. The sanction imposed on the perpetrator of the crime of trademark rights is a fine of Rp. 20,000,000, - (twenty million rupiah) on condition that if the fine is not paid, he will be subject to imprisonment for 6 (six) months. Settlement of trademark cases can be carried out through institutions that can be used to resolve trademark disputes, including: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration and Courts. Alternative dispute resolution wants the disputing parties to resolve their own dispute with the aim of obtaining a mutual agreement, if the agreement fails, can take arbitration, namely the disputing parties to be able to resolve the dispute to the arbitration institution based on the agreement, furthermore, if the arbitration is successful the last action is through the court, namely the commercial court which has the authority to adjudicate trademark disputes.

Download Full-text