| Summary: | This study examines and answers the problems about dispute settlement
of registration cancellation of GRAHA FARMA drugstore mark, the criteria used
by judges determining a well-known mark and legal entities name, and basic
consideration of the judge to determine whether or not there are not elements of
good faith in registration of mark on a judicial decision on the GRAHA FARMA
drugstore mark.
This research is a applied law research in two stages of the study namely:
normative study is to conduct library research to collect and review of secondary
data through document studies using library facilities and other media that allows
to obtain and review the legal references related to the object of research, and
empirical study is to conduct field research to obtain primary data by interview
to the informant. In analyzing this research, the method which is used qualitative
descriptive. In analyzing the qualitative data, this study used an Interactive Model
of Analysis, ie the data gathered will be analyzed through three stages, namely
reducing data, presenting data, and making conclusion.
The results of this research show that, first the dispute settlement of
registration cancellation of the mark is essentially the same as civil proceedings in
general courts (District Court), the difference is the relatively short time and the
judicial decision of the Commercial Court can not to appela, but the direct appeal
to the Supreme Court. Second, the criteria used by judges determining the wellknown
marks and legal entities name in the judicial decision on the GRAHA
FARMA drugstore mark, according to the author it is less precise because of its
reputation as a well known mark and legal entities name are not yet valid and they
are still limited at the national level have not reached the international level.
Third, the determination of whether or not there is a good faith element of
registration of the mark on the judicial decision can not be separated from the
underlying provisions of the Explanation of Article 4 of Act No. 15 of 2001.
|
|---|