Analysis of Decision Number: 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek/2022/PN.Niaga Mdn Regarding the Dispute over the MS Glow and PS Glow Brands, Which Have Essential Similarities for Similar Goods

Abstract

In the contemporary era of digital trade, with Indonesia's adherence to international conventions, the significance of brands and geographical indications cannot be overstated. These factors play a crucial role in upholding a fair and healthy business competition environment and safeguarding consumer interests. One particular instance that highlights the importance of these aspects is the brand dispute case involving MS Glow and PS Glow. The decision rendered by the Medan Commercial Court, which favored MS Glow, emphasized the significance of prior brand registration in conferring exclusive rights to the concerned party. The main objective of this research is to analyze the factors that judges take into account and the legal implications that arise from their decisions in court. The research methodology employed for this study is normative legal research, utilizing a combination of statutory analysis and case studies. Upon conducting this research, it has become apparent that the judgment made by the Medan Commercial Court in the trademark dispute between MS Glow and PS Glow was deemed unjust. This is primarily because the judge failed to consider certain crucial aspects in the decision-making process, specifically the fact that the MS Glow trademark was registered for class 32, which pertains to tea powder drinks, and not for cosmetic products. As a result, it was determined that PS Glow holds the exclusive rights to utilize the trademark. It is important to note that PS Glow's trademark registration with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property, under the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, specifically covers class 3 goods and services, which includes cosmetics.