Well-known Marks Research Articles

Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Pemegang Hak Merek Superman Terhadap Pelanggaran Merek

Owners of well-known marks in Indonesia have in some cases been rejected when submitting their application for registration by DGIP because most of the similar marks have already been registered. For example, PT. Marxing Fam Makmur by registering the Superman trademark while it was registered first by DC Comics. So, the problem is how the protection of Superman's trademark rights holders based on Law No. 20 of 2016, and how is the decision of the Commercial Court judge in ruling on trademark disputes. This study uses normative research methods which are sourced from secondary data as a support for qualitative analysis. Based on the analysis, it is known that the Superman brand belongs to PT. Marxing Fam Makmur has similarities in essence to the Superman brand owned by DC Comics and the Superman trademark registrant has bad intentions, so DC Comics as the owner of the Superman mark has the right to file a trademark cancellation lawsuit to the Central Jakarta Commercial Court. In the lawsuit, DC Comics did not prepare the lawsuit accurately and clearly so that the lawsuit became vague and the judge decided that the lawsuit was declared unacceptable

Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Pemegang Merek Terhadap Pemalsuan Merek Fashion

Trademark as one manifestation of intellectual property has an important role for the smooth and increased trade in goods and services in the trade of goods and investment. As for the problems in writing this thesis, What about legal protection for trademark
 holders against falsification of fashion brand violations? This research uses normative research methods. Another name for normative law is doctrinal law research, also referred to as document library research or document study. This study uses a statutory and conceptual approach. Existing legal protection also applies to trademark holders as protection provided to legal subjects in the form of both preventive and repressive legal instruments. Settlement of legal violations of registered trademarks, is in Article 83 paragraph (3) of Law Number 20 of 2016 Regarding Trademarks and Geographical Indications which use the Commercial Court channel as an institution to resolve trademark disputes, infringement of wellknown marks can be resolved through legal channels civil and criminal law lines. Legal remedies for trademark rights against Fashion Zara brand product offenses can file Civil and Criminal Lawsuits for damages and also proceed in a commercial court in accordance with the provisions stipulated in article 83 of Act No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The suggestion is to socialize the importance of registering trademarks for legal protection to trademark holders so that trademark owners will increase their awareness to register trademarks used.

Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for Well-Known Marks

Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for Well-Known Marks

The Ethiopian Well-Known Trademark Protection System and Its Implication on Foreign Direct Investment

Due to the ever increasing trans-border movement, internet connection and globalization, individuals in different corner of the world are becoming easily accustomed to international well-known marks even though the owners of such marks do not produce/supply goods/services within a particular territory. Be this as it may, coupled with the conventional registration and territorial based system that is pursued in respect of the protection of trademarks, the dynamic change of such interaction among the global community have opened a fertile ground for trademark squatters to register and exploit the international well-known marks of others. On the backdrop of this fact, this manuscript investigates the Ethiopian well-known trademark protection system in light of its capacity to promote the interest of the country, in particular in respect of its potential implication on the foreign direct investment flow of the country. The study has made use of primary and secondary sources of data and qualitative analysis to investigate the implication of the regime on the foreign direct investment flow of the country. The finding is that the existing international well-known trademark protection legal framework, which hangs up the special protection of such marks to a future international convention, apart from its potential threat on franchise business and foreign direct investment flow, it is deterring the country from benefiting out of employment opportunities and declaration fees which the country shall consider forth with. Keywords: International well-known trademark, Foreign Direct Investment, Franchise business, Registration, Territorial. DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/106-01 Publication date: February 28 th 2021

The Use Doctrine in Trademark Law: Issues from Trade and Transborder Reputation

Mindful of the current trend within the United States to revive the focus on the use of trademark to determine a mark’s ability to act as a source indicator, in this paper I highlight how focusing on use can create disparate results by examining the role of use when dealing with well-known marks. Hence, this paper implicates the prescriptions from the harmonized trade regime, especially trademark law. In doing so, the paper outlines larger public policy concerns that will ensue especially considering the role of the use doctrine in the context of international harmonization of protection of well-known trademarks. In order to do so, this paper examines protection of foreign marks in two jurisdictions, India and the United States, to identify global public policy concerns which has national implications. The study debunks the myth that harmonization would result in trading partners extending reciprocal treatment. That is, inapposite to the touted position, this paper uses the well-known marks example to outline disparate outcomes that ensue when focusing on use as source indicator. In highlighting how harmonization has not resulted in uniformity or predictability internationally to identify and recognize well-known trademarks, this paper discusses how the lack of predictability under a harmonized system has raised strong public policy concerns as well as economic outcomes that may be detrimental to some markets but beneficial to others. Overall, this paper asserts that a coherent approach will have to necessarily involve some level of flexibilities in the trade regime to determine constituents of fame for a well-known trademark in each jurisdiction.

Adopting Passing off Concept of Unfair Competition Into Indonesia’s Trademark Law

The application of the concepts of unfair competition in Indonesia’s Trademark Law is one of the reasons as a proper solution in providing justification and argumentation basis, in terms of to answer the issue of impersonation of trademarks on different kinds goods, particularly for impersonation of domestic well known mark obtains sufficient legal basis due to the existence of protection and legal certainty for the trademark owner which is impersonated thereof. The current Indonesia trademark law basically only provide trademark lawsuit in terms of cancellation for registered mark; legal damages claim. Both lawsuits related to using unauthorized registered mark based on overall or basic similarities in the same kind of goods, although unauthorized use in different kind of good is possible to be sued but it is restricted for international well-known mark only. In addition there is such trademark lawsuit in connection with deletion registered mark means this proceeding enforce when the registered mark does not use for three years as of the mark registered. Considering that actually the concept of unfair competition basically reflect to the understanding of unlawful act (tort) which stating in the article 1365 Indonesia’s Civil Code. However, this understanding is not covered in Indonesia’s Trademark law instead of it is enforced in Indonesia’s civil law and civil procedure. Hence, if there is a trademark impersonation dispute in the different kinds of goods, the resolution of the dispute will refer to unlawful act and that lawsuit will be trialed by regular district court, even though based on trademark law for trademark lawsuit should be trialed by commercial court. Therefore, it is lead to uncertainty in terms of the authorize court which is examined and handled the said case. To include the concept of unfair competition as a part of trademark violation into Indonesia’s trademark law hopefully enable to anticipate in reducing any kind of types trademark violation occurred including in the form of violation such impersonation of domestic well-known mark in different kind of goods. This research is normative legal research with a legislation, concept, and comparative approach. The legal material with technical analysis is done by the method of interpretation. Comparing to the concept of unfair competition, passing off within Indonesia’s trademark law; International Trademark Convention will answers whether the understanding of unfair competition applied in the trademark violation in Indonesia particularly in connection with the issues of impersonation towards registered of well-known mark domestically is already proper either for domestic or worldwide perspective.

A legal protection for domestic well-known mark on impersonation of different kind of goods under Indonesia’s trademark law

Indonesia’s trademark law does not provide provision for legal protection to registered mark which is well-known domestically therefore, there is no legal basis in case there is another party to commit in impersonation the said registered mark in the different kind of goods. On the other hand, protection indicates the address of international well-known marks only. Referring to the trademark law regime which is common universally such as can be found in the Paris Convention and TRIPs Agreement. Otherwise, for impersonation in different kinds of goods, the protection is given for a well- known mark only. However, the said mark must be recognized within the territory where the mark is called as well-known such in certain countries. The purpose of this study is to know the legal protection for the domestic well-known mark on impersonation of different kind of goods under Indonesia’s trademark law. This study is normative legal research with legislation, concept, and comparative approach. The legal material with technical analysis is done by the method of interpretation. Results of this study, The regulation of legal protection for registered trademark owners of impersonation of different kinds of goods should be reregulated (a reformulation of provisions). So that which is a well-known trademark can be in the form of domestic and internationally well-known, therefore the requirements for registration and commercializing of a mark in several countries, not as an obligation to obtain the rights and status become a well-known mark. However, when a mark is factually known and used in Indonesia, the wide scope of international well-known is no need as a mandatory.

Pierre Cardin Trademark Dispute

-

A Case Against the Use Doctrine in Trademark Law

Mindful of the current trend within the United States to revive the focus on the use of trademark to determine a mark’s ability as a source indicator, this paper highlights how focusing on use can create disparate results by examining the role of use when dealing with well-known marks. Hence, this paper implicates the prescriptions from harmonized trade regime, especially trademark law. In doing so, the paper outlines larger public policy concerns that will ensue especially considering the role of the use doctrine in the context of international harmonization of protection of well-known trademarks. In order to do so, this paper examines protection of foreign marks in two jurisdictions, India and the United States to identify global public policy concerns which has national implications. First, the paper also debunks the myth that that harmonization would result in trading partners extending reciprocal treatment. That is, inapposite to the touted position, this paper uses the well-known marks example to outline disparate outcomes that ensue when focusing on use as source indicator. Second, in highlighting how harmonization has not resulted in uniformity or predictability internationally to identifying and recognizing well-known trademarks, this paper discusses how a lack of predictability under a harmonized system has raised strong public policy as well as economic outcomes that may be detrimental to some markets but benefit others. Overall, this paper asserts that a coherent approach will have to necessarily involve some level of flexibilities to determine what fame is for a foreign trademark in each jurisdiction depending on the market in question.

Well Known Marks In India: Under Protected or Over Protected?

India is obligated to protect under its international intellectual property norms. When the new Act came into effect in 1999, provisions regarding well-known marks have been included. Even prior to this, there are multiple instances where courts have pro-actively protected well-known marks. The attempt of the paper is to analyze the extent to which the international obligations have been fulfilled under the domestic law.

VIOLATIONS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST MARK VIEWED FROM LAW NO. 20 OF 2016 CONCERNING MARK AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS

<p>Right on marks are a source of material wealth for their owners because they have economic value that can bring high profits. Marks in trade also have dual<br />functions as competition tools and monopoly tools. Therefore, every mark owner needs to register his mark in order to get legal protection. Because in reality everyday there are many violations of the mark even though the mark has been registered, so the registered mark owner feels aggrieved. Violations due to people wanting to make a profit by cutting short the example of a registered and well-known mark, in addition to the Human Resources of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property itself also lacks control over the law on mark, so marks that should be rejected by many are approved. In addition, the Law Enforcement has indeed been implemented, but not maximal. This can be seen from the demands and fines of the Public Prosecutor and the Decision of the Panel of Judges is still very light</p>

Trumping local marks: A note on well-known trade marks in Nepal

... On 2 August 2017, the Patan High Court upheld the principle ‘first-to-file’ to receive protection under Nepalese trade mark law and refuse to consider the trade mark ‘Havells’, which has been used in Nepal since 2001 and over time has been expanded to cover products like cables, wires, motors, fans, home appliances among others, as a well-known trade mark in Nepal.1 The decision did not escape criticism for providing inadequate legal protection to well-known trade marks and the country’s negative attitude towards foreign brands. This note attempts to introduce the intellectual property (IP) regime in Nepal and discusses well-known trade marks in light of recent cases. The first part introduces an IP framework in Nepal, providing a helicopter view of the first National IP policy issued in 2017. The second part briefly delineates the international framework for the protection of well-known trade marks. The third part delves into the current system of trade mark protection, examines recent cases related to well-known trade marks. The last part provides the drive for change in the current legislation.

Additional but not unlimited protection for well-known marks: EU General Court dismisses Prada’s opposition to the registration of ‘The Rich Prada’

Additional but not unlimited protection for well-known marks: EU General Court dismisses Prada’s opposition to the registration of ‘The Rich Prada’

Legal Possibility to Regulate Defensive Mark as Well-Known Mark Protection in Indonesia

Tingkat pelanggaran terhadap merek terkena dan merek termasyhur di Indonesia masih terbilang tinggi yang mana tindakan tersebut dilakukan pihak yang tidak memiliki hak yang digunakan untuk menjalankan bisnis dengan cara persaingan usaha yang tidak sehat di Indonesia. Hal tersebut berdampak pada timbulnya kesesatan dan kebingungan (likelihood of confussion) di masyarakat. Perlindunagan merek terkenal/termasyhur diatur dalam hukum internasional dan hukum nasional. Dalam hukum internasional, diatur dalam Paris Convention on Industrial Property dan Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Selain itu, Organisasi Kekayaan Intelektual Dunia (WIPO) mengeluarkan Rekomendasi WIPO tentang Ketentuan tentang Perlindungan Merek terkenal. WIPO Recommendation on Provision on Protection of well-known Mark. Selain itu, Negara-negara memiliki independensi untuk memberlakukan ketentuan tentang perlindungan merek terkenal dengan undang-undang nasional. Salah satu jenis perlindungan adalah dengan mendaftarkan tanda ke pendaftaran merek defensive (Defensive Mark). Merek Defensif merupakan perlindungan yang tidak umum di dunia. Indonesia secara tidak langsung melindungi merek defensif. Faktor yang menghambat pemberlakuan merek defensif di Indonesia adalah ketidaksiapan merek local. Di sisi lain, pemberlakuan merek defensive di Indonesia akan meningkatkan kriminalisasi dan gugatan perdata terhadap merek lokal, karena perlindungan hukum terhadap pihak asing yang memperoleh merek terkenal atau merek terkenal dapat mengajukan gugatan dan penuntutan terhadap merek lokal yang tidak memiliki perlindungan merek dagang. Sehingga dapat menghambat pertumbuhan ekonomi di Indonesia, Hal itu membuat tanda defensif tidak mungkin diatur di Indonesia. Selain itu, kesadaran untuk mendaftarkan merek dagang di Indonesia masih rendah. Hal itu tercermin dengan pendaftaran merek dagang di Indonesia yang masih rendah jumlahnya.

A Source for Menasseh ben Israel’s Printer’s Mark

Abstract This zuta offers a presentation of the various printer’s marks used by Menasseh ben Israel, and especially the discovery of some sources in Dutch emblem literature for his most prominent and well-known mark and its motto, ‘Non odit tamen.’

Law enforcement against trade in counterfeit goods using well-known marks (a study in traditional markets in Medan)

The illegal use of well-known marks for counterfeit goods is qualified as a criminal act. The act may cause damages to the owner of a well-known mark. The protection of a registered mark and a well-known mark through Law Number 15 Year 2001 on Trade Marks should be able to address issues related to mark infringement. The number of cases of illegal use of well-known marks is high because, in a business, using a well-known mark is more profitable than using own mark. Other factor which influences trade in counterfeit goods using well-known marks is the lack of public legal awareness as consumers, producers and traders. An empirical research method was applied in the research, using primary and secondary data. Maximizing trade in local goods using registered marks is one of effective ways to minimize trade in counterfeit goods using well-known marks in traditional markets in Medan. There are two possible solutions to this problem. The first solution is socializing Law on Marks to local producers, consumers and traders. The second solution is implementing a supporting program to help local producers register their rights to a mark.

Swedish Patent and Market Court excludes any link between coffee and beer

Unified cases PMT 16366-15 and PMT 15494-16 of 26 April 2017, ‘SOFIERO’ The Swedish Patent and Market Court has, in a well-reasoned, 60-page decision, concluded that coffee and beer are dissimilar goods and that use of a highly similar trade mark in relation to coffee is unlikely to create a link in the minds of consumers with an earlier well-known mark registered in respect of beers.

DISSENTING OPINION PUTUSAN SENGKETA MEREK PIERRE CARDIN INDONESIA MELAWAN PIERRE CARDIN PERANCIS DALAM KAJIAN HUKUM ISLAM: Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 557 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015

<p>This article intents to examine the dissenting opinion in the judges consideration on the Supreme Court Decision No. 557 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015. This article is normative research with statute approach dan conceptual approach. The legal material on this research consist of primery legal materials namely Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademark and Supreme Court Decision No. 557 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015, while the secondary legal materials are books, journals, research related to trademarks. The judge decide to reject the application of Pierre Cardin because the petition of Pierre Cardin has passed a period of five years from the registration of Pierre Cardin Indonesia. However, the conclusion of this study revealed that Pierre Cardin entitled to be protected because it is a well-known mark. Finally, Pierre Cardin Indonesia has violeted the terms of article 4 jo article 6 paragraph (1) letter b of Trademark Law because he has a bad faith and had imitated the well-known mark.</p>

PLAČIAI ŽINOMŲ PREKIŲ ŽENKLŲ APSAUGĄ PAGRINDŽIANČIŲ TEORIJŲ ANALIZĖ

Straipsnyje analizuojamos teorijos, pagrindžiančios plačiai žinomų prekių ženklų apsaugą, įtvirtintą Sutarties dėl intelektinės nuosavybės teisių aspektų, susijusių su prekyba (TRIPS), 16 straipsnio 3 dalyje. Straipsniu siekiama atskleisti pagrindines remiantis TRIPS 16 straipsnio 3 dalimi saugomas prekių ženklų funkcijas ir jų ribas bei nustatyti galbūt tinkamiausią šios apsaugos doktrininį pagrindimą.

Abstract 3622: Crosstalk between automethylation and phosphorylation tightly regulates G9a and GLP coactivator function with steroid hormone receptors

Abstract Hormone-activated steroid receptors (SR) bind to specific regulatory elements on DNA and recruit coregulators which remodel chromatin, regulate assembly of the transcription complex, and regulate transcription of their target genes. As for many coregulators, the lysine methyltransferases G9a and GLP function in both activation and repression of transcription depending on the target gene. Indeed, G9a and GLP catalyze methylation of H3K9, a well-known repressive mark, but can also act as coactivators of SR (e.g. estrogen receptor α and glucocorticoid receptor or GR). G9a and GLP can form homo- and heterodimers via interactions between their C-terminal domains. At the molecular level, we established that GLP, as well as G9a, is methylated on the N terminal domain of the protein, which is the region implicated in coactivator function. This event is required for the recruitment of HP1g, while HP1g binding to G9a and GLP is inhibited by aurora B-mediated phosphorylation of G9a or GLP adjacent to the methylation site. In transient reporter gene assays, mutations of G9a and GLP methylation sites significantly decreased their coactivator activity with GR. Inversely, inhibition of Aurora kinase B activity increased the reporter gene activation. In addition, inhibition of the kinase activity of Aurora B increased the expression of endogenous GR target genes positively regulated by G9a and GLP, while depletion of HP1g inhibited their expression. Moreover methylated G9a or GLP can form a ternary complex with HP1g and GR in cell lines, and HP1g was recruited to the GR binding sites of the target genes positively regulated by G9a and GLP (but not on GR target genes that do not require G9a or GLP). Interestingly, the subset of GR target genes positively regulated by G9a and GLP contains some genes involved in cellular movement. At the physiological level, we established that G9a and GLP act as coactivators of GR target genes that mediate glucocorticoid repression of cell migration, which accompanies epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition associated with cancer progression. In this study we demonstrated that G9a and GLP methylation is required for their coactivator function with GR, because it facilitates recruitment of HP1g which functions selectively as a coactivator for genes positively regulated by G9a, GLP and GR. Inversely, G9a and GLP phosphorylation antagonizes these effects. This competition could be involved in the switch to determine whether G9a and GLP function as coactivator or corepressor on specific target genes. Defining the specific molecular functions of SR coregulators and how their recruitment and actions are coordinated is key to understanding how transcription is regulated and will suggest new targets in steroid hormone regulated cancer and in other steroid hormone-related diseases. Citation Format: Coralie Poulard, Michael Stallcup. Crosstalk between automethylation and phosphorylation tightly regulates G9a and GLP coactivator function with steroid hormone receptors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3622. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-3622