Perlindungan Hukum atas Desain Industri Berdasarkan Undang-Undang No 31 T Ahun 2000

Intellectual property rights including industrial designs. The idea of ​​industrial design safety is based on the belief that human imagination, taste and initiative are closely linked to industrial design. The state grants protection against new industrial designs. The definition of the rule of law used in the legal protection of industrial designs is based on Law No. 31 of 2000. One of the components in this case is the protection of human rights which is the guideline for the legal protection of industrial designs. There are two forms of industrial design legal protection, which include preventive legal protection and repressive legal protection. This study aims to examine the form of legal protection for industrial designs based on Law No. 31 of 2000 and analyze the legal implications if the design rights holder does not register their industrial designs. This research was designed using normative research with a conceptual approach. The data used are primary and secondary data obtained through documentation and recording. The results of the study indicate that preventive legal protection is contained in the Act which is used to prevent violations and a description of the implementation of obligations while repressive legal protection is security in the form of sanctions for violations that have been committed. In view of this and considering the existence of protection in the form of the industrial design law, the designer can prevent the occurrence of plagiarism of his industrial design by registering his industrial design.

Fairness in Fair Dealing on the Industrial 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.

Differences in Immaterial Details: Dimensional Conversion and Its Implications for Protecting Digital Designs Under EU Design Law

The paper considers three main questions: the legal status of digital designs from the perspective of EU design law, whether the protection is tied to the reproduction of physical products, and whether the scope of protection covers dimensional conversion such as using a 3D design in 2D form or vice versa. There are two sets of views regarding dimensional conversion: the “abstract” and the “concrete” view. These two different attitudes towards the scope of protection influence the manner in which the protectability of digital designs is assessed. In the “abstract” protection, it would not matter whether a product only exists as a digital image and not as a physical shape. In the “concrete” view, the protection of digital designs is more problematic, as the scope of protection is often tied to the reproduction of an actual physical product. The paper argues that, under CJEU jurisprudence and EUIPO practice, most of the open questions regarding the protection of digital designs and dimensional conversion can be considered as solved. The CJEU has chosen “abstract” protection over “concrete”, thus broadening the scope of protection at the EU level. This means that the digital use of non-digital designs can now be seen as infringing. As a consequence, in the future, right holders should put more care into evaluating the limitations and exceptions. The paper points this out with regard to the issues that are of relevance for the gaming industry, as this is where the use of digital designs is most versatile and relevant.