Business LAw - Group 3bD4

business law term paper

“PT Batara Mulia Agung  Litigation A Lowo Brand”

Compiled By  3b/D4 :

Group Members:

1.      Nirwan Suparwan (46110011)

2.      Rahmawati Ramli (46110015)

3.      Harmuliyah           (46110034)

4.      Erwin                    (46110051)

5.      Putri reski ananda (46110053)

State Polytechnic of Ujungpandang

2013

CHAPTER I

Introduction

1.1  Background Problem

Background of the birth of the brand among others based on the appearance of the current globalization in all aspects of life of the human race, especially in the field of economy and trade. The rapid development in information technology and transportation pushed the growth of the market economy and the integration of global trade. The needs, capabilities and advances in technology over a product now is the market for production-production of the trademark owner and entrepreneur services. They want their products to obtain access to the free-free to the market.

Therefore, the development in the field of trade and industry that increasingly requires increased protection sedemikan of the technology used in the manufacturing process, if the product is then circulated in the market by using a certain brand then it needs to protect the marketed product from various actions against the law in the end is the need to protect the brand. In this connection the rights arising from intellectual property rights especially the rights to the brand of a product will be very important in terms of legal protection therefore for parents and develop a product brand of goods or services made with difficulty remembering also a long time and cost a fortune to promote the brand to be well-known and gained a place in the market.

One way to strengthen a healthy trading system in developing the brand of a product i.e. goods or services by conducting a legal protection against trademark registration.

1.2  Outline Of The Problem

From material/term paper topics, we can formulate some problems as follows:

a. Why PT Batara Agung mulia litigate a Lowo brand?

b. How the Defendant's response over allegations of PT Batara Agung Mulia who judge branded the defendant a copy?

1.3  The Purpose Of The Writing

From the formula above we conclude the issue the purpose of this paper is as follows:

a. to find out what causes the PT Batara Agung mulia litigate a Lowo brand that is dragging the local businessmen.

b. to determine the response of defendants over allegations PT Batara Agung mulia who assess brand defendants is allusion.

CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

2.1 Review of Literature

2.1.1 Definition of Brand

The brand is a sign in the form of pictures, names, words, letters, numbers, stripes or a combination of these elements that have the power of difference and used in the activities of trade in goods or services and gives rise to a sense of psychological/Association.

The copyright must be able to protect the expression of an idea, the idea of the concept, one way to protect a copyright listed in article 3 of Act No. 15 of 2001 about the brand is by doing registration rights to the brand.

Article 3 of Act No. 15 of 2001 about the brand States that the rights to the brand is an exclusive right granted by the State to the owner of a trademark registered in the list of Common brand for a specific time period by using the brand's own or give permission to oranglain to use it. In the registration of the brand, the owner gets the rights to the brand are protected by law.

The owner of the brand is the applicant approved their petition in trademark registration in writing to the Directorate General of intellectual property rights, as enshrined in article 1 paragraph (6) of Act No. 15 of 2001 about the brand.

1.2.2 Function and benefits of a brand

The need to protect the marketed product from various actions against the law in the end is the brand needs. A brand is a sign that can be imprinted on the goods in question or the bundle of such items, if an item produced by a company does not have the power criterion is considered not sufficient strength and therefore is not a brand. The main function of the brand (translation in English is a trademark, brand or logo) is to distinguish the goods or services or products the manufacturer/provider.

The brand suggests the origin of the goods/services as well as product owner. The law States the brand as property or something which belongs to a particular party, eksklisif and prohibits all others to use without the express permission of the owner. Thus, the brand serves as an identifier in the activities of trade in goods/services are similar. In General, a product of such goods/services made by a person or legal entity to be a mark of distinction with products of other goods and services. This particular sign is an identifier for the goods/services in question produce commonly known brands.

The brand can also serve to stimulate industrial and commercial growth is healthy and benefits all parties. Beside that also serves as a means of promotion and advertisement for producers or entrepreneurs who trade the goods/services in question. Based on the merits and then the requisite legal protection of trademark rights products are:

1. to ensure the legal certainty for the inventor or the holder of the trademark rights to the brand.

2. to prevent the occurrence of violations and crimes over the rights to the brand so that justice can be rendered to the legal heirs.

3. to provide benefits to the community to be more driven to create and take care of the registration of the brand of their efforts.

2.1.3 brand that can not be registered and rejected

"Brand could not be registered on the basis of application submitted by the applicant are not well intentioned"

the applicant is not well intentioned applicant who registered its brand is not feasible and dishonest or intentionally intend rides along, mimic, or plagiarize the other party's brand of Fame for the sake of the interest of his which results in harm to others or gives rise to conditions of competition for cheating, mengecok or mislead consumers.

The brand may not be listed in the brand to contain one of the following elements:

1. contrary to the applicable legislation, morality, morality, ah\gama or public order;

2. no on-site power criterion;

3. has become public property;

4. A description of or relating to the goods or services being appealed take.

The petition should be rejected by the Brand DJHKI:

1.      Have the equation substantially or entirely denganmerek belonging to other parties who have registered earlier for similar goods or services;

2.      Have the equation substantially or entirely with famous brands belonging to the other party for the goods and/or services of its kind, can be enforced against the goods and/or services which are not similar along certain requirements will be set more more with government regulations;

3.      Have the equation substantially or entirely with geographical indications which are well known;

4.      Is or resembles the name of famous people, photos, or the name of a legal entity owned by another person, unless the written consent of the owners;

5.      is the copycats or resembles the name or abbreviation of name, flag, emblem or symbol or emblem of State or national or international institution, except for approval of tetulis from the authorities; 6. is the copycats or resembles a mark or stamp or an official stamp that is used by the State or Government agencies, unless the consent of the appropriate authorities

2.2 Discussion

2.2.1 PT Batara Agung mulia litigate a Lowo brand

PT Batara Agung Mulia lawsuit cast a letter to the Central jakarta District Court over the trademark case Lowo argued that local businessmen Hengki Arifin as defendants have beretikad not good that in registering the brand Lowo (label) which is a trademark that is carried in the PT Batara  Agung.

In his suit to court PT Batara Agung Mulia appealed to the Central jakarta District Court judge to cancel a trademark registration on the name lowo Hengki Arifin.

According to a power law PT Batara Agung honorable mention that the owner, applicants, and the first user of a trademark that admission is done on February 11, 1988. While the defendants had registered the brand on May 4, 2005, meaning that defendants are trademark allusion or clone of the label or the packaging of the plaintiff by removing lowo parts showing the identity of the plaintiff.

Defendants have committed an unhealthy competition for trying to mislead the consumer as if their products came from the same company that is owned by PT Batara Agung Mulia  as the plaintiff.

2.2.2  Defendant's response over allegations of PT Batara Agung Mulia who judge branded the defendant a copy

Arifin Hengki party as the defendant denied the accusations thrown by the PT Batara Agung who claimed himself as the first owner of the trademark Lowo.

According to the defendant says that the plaintiff is a brand registered by the sesame sauce instead of brand lowo. On behalf of the plaintiff's trademark was registered with me during the ciang ma yu fuk may mean (me lunch cian yan: mill sauce (sauce) happy, ma yu mijen sauce/tomato sauce mijen, fuk may: cap lowo) instead of brand lowo.

Thus, the power law Hengki Arifin added a trade certificate is written in is not a brand but a stamp of tau lowo lowo fuk may in kanzi and foreign language letters meaning lowo stamp.

 

  CHAPTER III

Conclution & Suggestion

3.1 Conclusion

1.      PT Batara Agung Mulia lawsuit cast a letter to the Commerce Court of Central jakarta over the trademark case lowo argued that local businessmen on behalf of the defendants not Hengki Arifin beretikad well in registering the brand lowo which is a trademark that has been carried by the product PT Batara Agung.

2.      the defendant disputes the accusation  thrown by PT Batara Agung that brands are registered by the plaintiff in contrast to trademarks listed by the defendant. Dagan's brand was registered by the PT Batara Agung Mulia is not a brand but the Sesame brand lowo sauce. On behalf of the plaintiff's trademark was registered with me during the ciang ma yu fuk may mean (me lunch cian yan: mill sauce (sauce) happy, ma yu mijen sauce/tomato sauce mijen, fuk may: cap lowo) instead of brand lowo.

3.2 Suggestion

1.      We realize as a writer is to understand that there are still many shortcomings of the preparation of a working paper entitled "legal Business" PT Batara Noble perkarakan Lowo brand "for that comment and advice is built so we hope for the sake of completeness this paper.

2.       

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adisumarto, Harsono, 1990, Hak Milik Inteletual, Khususnya Hak Cipta,

CV Akademika Pressindo, Jakarta.

Djumhana, Muhammad Dan R. Djubaedillah, 1997, Hak Milik Intelektual:

Sejarah, Teori Dan Praktiknya Di Indonesia, Penerbit: PT Citra Aditya Bakti : Bandung.

Sutaedi, Andrian,2009, Hak Atas Kekayaan Intelektual, Penerbit : Sinar Grafika

Jakarta.

Umbara, Citra, 2001, Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Tentang Paten Dan Merek

2001, Penerbit : Citra Umbara, Bandung.

Available from :

http ://www.educationwriting.net/resource_center/thesis/writing/pemegang hakatas

merek.htm.[internet] accessed May 8, 2013