| dc.description.abstract | Brands provide benefits to entrepreneurs, consumers, and society by offering legal protection through exclusive rights granted by the state. Trademark protection has limitations, one of which is its duration. Registered trademarks can be removed from the general trademark registry for several reasons. The formulation of the problem in this writing is as follows: How is the legal certainty of the trademark registration system in Indonesia, the factors that cause a registered trademark to be removed from the general trademark list, and how the legal considerations of the panel of judges in Decision Number 45/Pdt.SusHKI/Merek/2023/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. and MA Decision Number 76 K/Pdt.SusHKI/2024.
The research method used in this study is the Library Research method, which is normative in nature, meaning it involves collecting secondary data, consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials.
The trademark registration system in Indonesia uses a constitutive system, meaning that whoever registers their trademark with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DirJen HKI) will be the one who holds the rights to that trademark. There are two factors that can cause a registered trademark to be canceled, namely internal factors and external factors. The legal considerations of the judges in Decision Number 45/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/2023/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. and MA Decision Number 76 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2024, regarding the difference in the plaintiff's interest, the commercial court judges opined that the plaintiff did not have an interest, but the Supreme Court opined that the plaintiff had urgency, because the plaintiff wanted to continue business investment in Indonesia legally and safely. Furthermore, the issue of the investigation into the WIN trademark not being used by the defendant for a continuous period of 3 years. The Commercial Court judges considered this could not be used as a benchmark in making a decision, unlike the Supreme Court, which provided the reasoning that the investigation conducted by the plaintiff regarding the non-use of the registered WIN trademark by the defendant had already provided sufficient reason and met the elements of Article 74 paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. | en_US |
