LEGAL SUMMARY OF THE AYAM GEPREK BENSU CASE BASED ON THE DECISION NUMBER 57/PDT.SUS-HKI/MEREK/2019/PN NIAGA JKT.PST AND THE SUPREME COURT DECISION NUMBER 575 K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2020

Abstract

On the basis of the third judges consideration, namely Article 21 paragraph 2 letter a of the Law on marks and geographical indications jo. Article 16 paragraph 3 letter a Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation number 67/2016 on trademark registration, the application is rejected where the mark is identical to a legal entity which belongs to the mark of another party.23 Accordingly, on the basis of Article 21 paragraph 2 letter a of the Law on Marks and Geographical Indication, the Judge found that, on May 9, 2017 - August 14, 2017, the Appellant had become a brand ambassador with the Mark of Respondent I and that compensation payments were also made to the Appellant in sequence against 10 food businesses operated by the Respondent I operating since April 17, 2017. Then, the trademark of an Appellant must be refused again. From the above summary, in determining disputes over the Ayam Geprek BENSU brand, the judges consideration is in compliance with Law number 20/2016 on marks and geographical indications jo. Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation number 67/2016 on trademark registration, and the Directorate General of Intellectual Property is more cautious, in the handling of applications for new brands from the public, so that it does not happen again such as the conflict over the Ayam Geprek BENSU brand.