APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF “FOREIGN EQUIVALENTS LANGUAGE” AS THE BASIS OF TRADEMARK OWNERSHIP IN INDONESIA
Article Sidebar
Read Counter : 2
Download : 1
Main Article Content
Abstract
In the era of globalization, the use of foreign languages in trademarks is increasingly prevalent, including in Indonesia. Problems arise when a foreign mark that has been recognized abroad wants to be registered in Indonesia, but has been used or registered by other parties in the form of translation or transliteration. The doctrine of Foreign Equivalents (foreign translation) becomes important as it serves as a guideline in assessing the similarity of foreign and local marks based on their meaning or meaning in Indonesian. However, Indonesia has not expressly adopted or included this doctrine in the legislation, giving rise to legal uncertainty in the settlement of trademark disputes, especially in the case of seizure of rights to foreign marks translated into the local language. This research aims to analyze how the application of the doctrine of Foreign Equivalents Language in the trademark law system in Indonesia. This research is conducted using a normative juridical approach (legal reseach) or also known as doctrinal research. The data used was secondary data is data obtained directly through literature searches or from official documents, namely legal books on legal theory and books on copyright, especially trademarks and patents as well as document data on other countries. The data collection technique used in this research was a literature study. In the discussion of normative research results are analyzed normatively-qualitatively. The results showed that the Trademark Act of 2016 has not regulated the doctrine of Foreign Equivalents, giving rise to legal uncertainty in the registration of foreign language trademarks. Efforts to ensure fair legal protection and prevent consumer confusion, this doctrine needs to be explicitly included in the regulation of trademarks in Indonesia.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co., 750 F.2d 631, 641–642 (8th Cir. 1984).
Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional. (2015). Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-undang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis. Jakarta: Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, 49-51.
Carcione v. The Greengrocer, Inc., 205 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1075 (E.D. Cal. 1979).
French Transit v. Modern Coupon Sys., 818 F. Supp. 635, 636 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
Hidayah, K. (2017). Hukum HKI, Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (Malang: setara Press, 2017), 54 dan 62.
Kirkpatrick, R. L. (2005). Likelihood of confusion in trademark law (Vol. § 4:3). Thomson Reuters.
Krimnus, S. (2010). The doctrine of foreign equivalents at death’s door. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 12(1), 159–193.
Le Blume Import Co. v. Coty, 293 F. 344, 358 (2d Cir. 1923).
McCarthy, J. T. (2004). McCarthy on trademarks and unfair competition (4th ed., § 11:35, p. 11-69). Thomson Reuters.
Miguel Torres S.A. v. Casa Vinicola Gerardo Cesari S.R.L., 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 2018, *6–7 (T.T.A.B. 1998).
Miguel Torres S.A. v. Casa Vinicola Gerardo Cesari S.R.L., 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 2018, *6–7 (T.T.A.B. 1998).
Mulyani, S. (2016). Realitas pengakuan hukum terhadap hak atas merek sebagai jaminan fidusia pada praktik perbankan di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum dan Dinamika Masyarakat Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang, 11(2), 135–148.
Pacific Telesis Group v. International Telesis Communications, 994 F.2d 1364, 1370 (9th Cir. 1993).
Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondée en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondée en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 1531 (4th Cir. 1984).
Popular Bank v. Banco Popular, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 1998).
Prasetya, I. M. D., & Ariana, I. G. P. (2019). Pengaturan merek produk makanan (berdasarkan Undang-Undang No 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek). Kertha Semaya: Journal Ilmu Hukum Universitas Udayana, 7(1), 1–14.
Rest, E. J. (2006). Lost in translation: A critical examination of conflicting decisions applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents. The Trademark Reporter, 96, 1211–1245.
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Bel Canto Fancy Foods, Ltd., 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1980, 1982 (T.T.A.B. 1987) (quoting McCarthy, J. T. (1984). McCarthy on trademarks and unfair competition (2nd ed., § 23:14, p. 80)).
Santoso, E. (2016). Penegakan hukum terhadap pelanggaran merek dagang terkenal melalui peran kepabeanan sebagai upaya menjaga keamanan dan kedaulatan negara. Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, 5(1), 117–134.
Saraswati, I. A., & Ibrahim, R. (2017). Pembatalan merek karena adanya kesamaan konotasi dengan merek lain yang telah terdaftar. Kertha Semaya: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Udayana, 7(1), 1–15.
Seiko Sporting Goods U.S.A., Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Tokeiten, 545 F. Supp. 221, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
Seiko Sporting Goods USA, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Tokeiten, 545 F. Supp. 221, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
Soerjono Soekanto & Sri Mamudji, Penelitian Hukum Normatif, (Jakarta: Rajawali, 1986), 14.
Suratman, dan Philips Dillah, Metode Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Alfabeta, 11.
Sutter Home Winery, Inc. v. Madrona Vineyards, L.P., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4581, 20–21 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
Sutter Home Winery, Inc. v. Madrona Vineyards, L.P., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4581, 18 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 U.S.P.Q. 109, 110 (T.T.A.B. 1976)).
TMEP § 1207.01(b)(vi).
Tim Lindsey, (Ed), Hak Kekayaan Intelektual, Suatu Pengantar, Cetakan ke 7, Bandung: Alumni, 2013, hlm. 26.United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2004, March 3). About the TTAB. U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.uspto.gov/go/dcom/ttab/about.htm
United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2007). Trademark manual of examining procedure (TMEP). U.S. Department of Commerce.
Waluyo, B. (1991). Penelitian hukum dalam praktek. Sinar Grafika.