Dissenting Opinion Hakim Pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung dalam Perkara Merek Terkenal Yumi Katsura dan Prada

Afiyah Qurrota Ayun, Asep Syarifuddin Hidayat, Fitriyani Zein

Abstract


Abstract:

The problem examined in this study is related to the Dissenting Opinion of Judges in the Supreme Court's Decision in the Famous Brand Case of Yumi Katsura and PRADA. Problems related to the judges' consideration that stated dissenting opinions in famous trademark cases at the cassation level were seen from the Trademark Law, the Law on Judicial Power and the implications of the dissenting opinion on the famous brand case of Yumi Katsura and PRADA. This study uses qualitative research that is the type of data and analysis that is used is narrative, in the form of statements that use reasoning. The results of the study showed that the judges' consideration that stated dissenting opinion was more correct and correct, in the decision No. 310 K/Pdt. Sus-HKI/2013 based on the Law on Trademarks and facts at the hearing, while in the decision Number 164 K/Pdt . SUS-HKI/2016 besides based on the Trademark Law, also based on the Supreme Court Jurisprudence Number 2279/PK/Pdt/1992 and Number 1596 K/Pdt/1983. Then the implication of the judge's dissenting opinion on the case of a famous brand can provide knowledge about the interpretation of the phrase equality in essence and the interpretation of the criteria of a well-known brand as well as to the verdict handed down while still taking the most votes.

Keywords: Dissenting Opinion, Famous Brand, Yumi Katsura and PRADA 

Keywords


Dissenting Opinion, Famous Brand, Yumi Katsura and PRADA

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aji, A.M.; Yunus, N.R. Basic Theory of Law and Justice, Jakarta: Jurisprudence Institute, 2018.

Harahap, Yahya. Hukum Acara Perdata Gugatan, Persidangan, Penyitaan, Pembuktian, dan Putusan Pengadilan. Jakarta : Sinar Grafika, 2014.

Jamali, R. Abdoel. Pengantar Hukum Indonesia. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2016.

Jened, Rahmi. Merek dalam Era Global & Integrasi Ekonomi. Jakarta: Prenamedia Group, 2015.

Maggalatung, A.S.; Aji, A.M.; Yunus, N.R. How The Law Works, Jakarta: Jurisprudence Institute, 2014.

Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2008.

Moerad, Poentang. Pembentukan Hukum Melalui Putusan Pengadilan dalam Perkara Pidana, Bandung: PT. Alumni, 2005.

Pompe, Sebastian. Runtuhnya Institusi Mahkamah Agung. Jakarta : Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi untuk Independensi Peradilan, 2012.

Soeroso, R. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Jakarta, PT. Rajagrafindo Persada, 2006.

Sopyan, Yayan. Pengantar Metode Penelitian. Ciputat: Lembaga Penelitian UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2010.

Suteki dan Galang Taufani. Metodologi Penelitian Hukum (Filsafat, Teori, dan Praktik). Jakarta : PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 2018.

Peraturan Perundang-undangan

Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman

Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2009 Tentang Mahkamah Agung

Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2001 Tentang Merek

Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis

Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan HAM Nomor 67 Tahun 2016 Tentang Pendaftaran Merek.

Jurnal

Yufrizal, Perlindungan Hukum Merek Ditinjau Secara Yuridis dan Ekonomis, Jakarta : Varia Peradilan No. 335 Oktober 2013.

Wijayanta, Tata dan Hery Firmansyah. Perbedaan Pendapat dalam Putusan Pengadilan, Yogyakarta : Jurnal Mimbar Hukum, Vol 23 No. 1, 2011.

Koro. M.Abdi. Dissenting Opinion Merupakan Salah Satu Wujud Kemandirian Hakim. Jakarta :Varia Peradilan No. 323, 2012.

Pamalongo, Nawawi. Dissenting Opinion (The Necessary Evil), Jakarta: Varia Peradilan, No. 323, 2012.

Wijayanta, Tata. Perkembangan Perbedaan Pendapat (Dissenting Opinion) dalam Putusan Kepailitan di Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat, Jurnal Mimbar Hukum Vol. 19 No. 3, 2007.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15408/jlr.v1i1.13264 Abstract - 0 PDF - 0

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.