Search

Trademark as part of intellectual property rights is one of the most important elements in the business world. The number of trademark infringements that occurred in Indonesia from 2015 to 2023 shows an increasing trend. The purposes of this research are to explore and analyze the cause of trademark infringement and to investigate how efforts should be made to solve and reduce the number of trademark infringements in Indonesia. This research is normative legal research underpinned by interviews as well as through library research. Interviews were conducted with resource persons using interview guidelines. Then, data were analyzed using qualitative analysis. The result shows that the reason for trademark infringement is economic reasons. The offending party has bad intentions and assumes that the business whose trademark is to be imitated has good potential and person concerned can obtain a reasonable profit (good turnover potential) if using the same or similar trademark. The second is the party whose trademark is used by another party without rights needs to make a complaint about the trademark infringement because the infringement of intellectual property rights (including trademark infringement) is a complaint of violation that must be reported by the injured party to the law enforcer.

Trademark as part of intellectual property rights is one of the most important elements in the business world. The number of trademark infringements that occurred in Indonesia from 2015 to 2023 shows an increasing trend. The purposes of this research are to explore and analyze the cause of trademark infringement and to investigate how efforts should be made to solve and reduce the number of trademark infringements in Indonesia. This research is normative legal research underpinned by interviews as well as through library research. Interviews were conducted with resource persons using interview guidelines. Then, data were analyzed using qualitative analysis. The result shows that the reason for trademark infringement is economic reasons. The offending party has bad intentions and assumes that the business whose trademark is to be imitated has good potential and person concerned can obtain a reasonable profit (good turnover potential) if using the same or similar trademark. The second is the party whose trademark is used by another party without rights needs to make a complaint about the trademark infringement because the infringement of intellectual property rights (including trademark infringement) is a complaint of violation that must be reported by the injured party to the law enforcer.

Trademark as part of intellectual property rights is one of the most important elements in the business world. Trademark protection is one form of legal certainty required by investors, both domestic and foreign. The legal certainty also expects law enforcement against trademark infringement. The number of trademark infringement that occurred in Indonesia from 2015 to 2023 shows an increasing trend. The purposes of this research are to explore and analyze regarding the cause of trademark infringement and to investigate how efforts should be made to solve and reduce the number of trademark infringements in Indonesia. This research is normative legal research underpinned by interviews as well as through library research by tracing secondary data, using documentation methods and instrument in the form of document studies. Interviews were conducted with resource persons using interview guidelines. Then, data were analyzed using qualitative analysis.The result shows that the reason for trademark infringement is economic reasons. The offending party has bad intentions and assumes that the business whose trademark is to be imitated has good potential and person concerned can obtain a reasonable profit (good turnover potential) if using the same or similar trademark. The second is the party whose trademark is used by another party without rights needs to make a complaint about the trademark infringement because the violation/ infringement of intellectual property rights (including trademark infringement) is a complaint of violation that must be reported by the injured party to the law enforcer. This research is expected to provide input to the government and law enforcer in Indonesia related to law enforcement against trademark infringement that occurred in Indonesia.

Trademark as part of intellectual property rights is one of the most important elements in the business world. Trademark protection is one form of legal certainty required by investors, both domestic and foreign. The legal certainty also expects law enforcement against trademark infringement. The number of trademark infringement that occurred in Indonesia from 2015 to 2023 shows an increasing trend. The purposes of this research are to explore and analyze regarding the cause of trademark infringement and to investigate how efforts should be made to solve and reduce the number of trademark infringements in Indonesia. This research is normative legal research underpinned by interviews as well as through library research by tracing secondary data, using documentation methods and instrument in the form of document studies. Interviews were conducted with resource persons using interview guidelines. Then, data were analyzed using qualitative analysis.The result shows that the reason for trademark infringement is economic reasons. The offending party has bad intentions and assumes that the business whose trademark is to be imitated has good potential and person concerned can obtain a reasonable profit (good turnover potential) if using the same or similar trademark. The second is the party whose trademark is used by another party without rights needs to make a complaint about the trademark infringement because the violation/ infringement of intellectual property rights (including trademark infringement) is a complaint of violation that must be reported by the injured party to the law enforcer. This research is expected to provide input to the government and law enforcer in Indonesia related to law enforcement against trademark infringement that occurred in Indonesia.

Within the ever-changing realm of the digital era, the issue of trademark infringement across borders has become a complex obstacle that challenges the traditional limits of safeguarding intellectual property. The research paper explores the intricate relationship between digital technologies, online platforms, and the limitations in enforcing trademark rights across different jurisdictions. The study examines the complex legal challenges that legal systems worldwide face when dealing with the global movement of goods, services, and information. The paper explores how different jurisdictions, like the United States, European Union, and China, tackle the increasing problem of cross-border trademark infringement. Additionally, the study thoroughly analyzes global attempts to achieve harmonization across nations and their effectiveness in resolving conflicts between worldwide trade and local legal systems. This paper aims to contribute to finding practical solutions that align trademark protection with the realities of the digital era. It does so by exploring the details of jurisdictional intricacies and potential pathways for harmonization. This research highlights the importance of countries working together to protect intellectual property rights and promote a global economy in the context of cross-border trademark infringement.

The present note aims to give a better understanding of parody as an exception to the exclusive rights provided to copyright holders and trademark owners. With this purpose, the note uses the Louis Vuitton vs. MOB case as a reference.

This article suggests some pause for reflection amongst intellectual property lawyers, and for serious consideration of the words of an internationally-renowned IP law expert: "Possessing a right does not mean that it is a good idea to enforce it always, and to the hilt. Discretion may be nine parts of possession". It provides some prominent, recent examples of trademark bullying or overly-aggressive enforcement in the IP law context. These examples are mainly from other jurisdictions but they are directly relevant to some of the IP law challenges present in South Africa at the moment. The article further examines why lawyers and rights' holders engage in trademark bullying (why it's done), and start to deal briefly with some of the legal implications. A future article is to examine the legal aspects of trademark bullying in much more detail and considers its legitimacy within the context of IP law, more generally, and some other areas of law, more specifically.

This article suggests some pause for reflection amongst intellectual property lawyers, and for serious consideration of the words of an internationally-renowned IP law expert: "Possessing a right does not mean that it is a good idea to enforce it always, and to the hilt. Discretion may be nine parts of possession". It provides some prominent, recent examples of trademark bullying or overly-aggressive enforcement in the IP law context. These examples are mainly from other jurisdictions but they are directly relevant to some of the IP law challenges present in South Africa at the moment. The article further examines why lawyers and rights' holders engage in trademark bullying (why it's done), and start to deal briefly with some of the legal implications. A future article is to examine the legal aspects of trademark bullying in much more detail and considers its legitimacy within the context of IP law, more generally, and some other areas of law, more specifically.

This article suggests some pause for reflection amongst intellectual property lawyers, and for serious consideration of the words of an internationally-renowned IP law expert: "Possessing a right does not mean that it is a good idea to enforce it always, and to the hilt. Discretion may be nine parts of possession". It provides some prominent, recent examples of trademark bullying or overly-aggressive enforcement in the IP law context. These examples are mainly from other jurisdictions but they are directly relevant to some of the IP law challenges present in South Africa at the moment. The article further examines why lawyers and rights' holders engage in trademark bullying (why it's done), and start to deal briefly with some of the legal implications. A future article is to examine the legal aspects of trademark bullying in much more detail and considers its legitimacy within the context of IP law, more generally, and some other areas of law, more specifically.

This article suggests some pause for reflection amongst intellectual property lawyers, and for serious consideration of the words of an internationally-renowned IP law expert: "Possessing a right does not mean that it is a good idea to enforce it always, and to the hilt. Discretion may be nine parts of possession". It provides some prominent, recent examples of trademark bullying or overly-aggressive enforcement in the IP law context. These examples are mainly from other jurisdictions but they are directly relevant to some of the IP law challenges present in South Africa at the moment. The article further examines why lawyers and rights' holders engage in trademark bullying (why it's done), and start to deal briefly with some of the legal implications. A future article is to examine the legal aspects of trademark bullying in much more detail and considers its legitimacy within the context of IP law, more generally, and some other areas of law, more specifically.

Since Google as the world's largest and most popular search engine encourages Internet users to browse their search results, it is naturally functioning as an advertising vehicle and has turned into the most profitable Internet company in world's history. Google's success, however, has been subject to strong criticism as one of the main concerns is linked to Google AdWords, which reveal keyword-triggered advertisements as well as sponsored links besides unsponsored search results. Courts both in Europe and the United States under different trademark legislation felt forced to address the collision of pre-Internet trademark infringement doctrines with modern technology. As Google AdWords have changed the way consumers observe Internet advertisements and search engines, the boundaries of trademark law have continuously been pushed forward. This development, thus, raises the question of whether Google AdWords by now are considered to function as trade liberalizer or trade infringer under two different trademark jurisdictions. What is certain as of now is, that if the current circumstances are to change, courts cannot solely rely on old doctrines to adapt to new situations. Instead, new rules should not be subject to isolated court proceedings by individual instances regarded that jurisdictions of courts are limited by territorial boundaries and Google AdWords have evolved as an element of borderless online sphere. Taking these new challenges into account, this paper argues that addressing trademark issues originated by AdWords will demand an international consideration and coordinated efforts between the EU and the United States to bring forward an international solution.

Since Google as the world's largest and most popular search engine encourages Internet users to browse their search results, it is naturally functioning as an advertising vehicle and has turned into the most profitable Internet company in world's history. Google's success, however, has been subject to strong criticism as one of the main concerns is linked to Google AdWords, which reveal keyword-triggered advertisements as well as sponsored links besides unsponsored search results. Courts both in Europe and the United States under different trademark legislation felt forced to address the collision of pre-Internet trademark infringement doctrines with modern technology. As Google AdWords have changed the way consumers observe Internet advertisements and search engines, the boundaries of trademark law have continuously been pushed forward. This development, thus, raises the question of whether Google AdWords by now are considered to function as trade liberalizer or trade infringer under two different trademark jurisdictions. What is certain as of now is, that if the current circumstances are to change, courts cannot solely rely on old doctrines to adapt to new situations. Instead, new rules should not be subject to isolated court proceedings by individual instances regarded that jurisdictions of courts are limited by territorial boundaries and Google AdWords have evolved as an element of borderless online sphere. Taking these new challenges into account, this paper argues that addressing trademark issues originated by AdWords will demand an international consideration and coordinated efforts between the EU and the United States to bring forward an international solution.

Counterfeits of designer merchandise continue to be made and sold throughout the world causing drastic social and economic outcomes everywhere. Despite the illegality of manufacturing and distributing counterfeit goods, this business has far-reaching effects that society is not generally aware of. The evils of counterfeiting luxury goods include forced child labor, drug trafficking, and international terrorism as well as loss of billions of dollars in revenue to legitimate businesses and governments. The ancient Latin phrase “Caveat emptor” “Let the buyer beware” is still relevant today. Being made aware and being warned, society may be motivated to shut down this illicit business of counterfeiting designer goods.

In September 2008, a consignment of pirated batteries, which were marked with Panasonic’s trademark, were retained by Swedish Customs. Panasonic sent a warning letter to the freight forwarding company, Tavatur, demanding it to destroy the batteries through the simplified procedure in (EC) No 1383/2003. However, since Sweden has not implemented the simplified procedure, Tavatur was unable to destroy the batteries without a court order from Sweden. Panasonic therefore sued Tavatur, the legal dispute being what liability freight forwarders have for pirated goods. Due to technical developments within different modes of transport, freight forwarders’ role has changed over the last few decades, from simple duties where the freight forwarder held an intermediary position, to a more independent role in which they now have to be legally classified as either a carrier or an agent. Unfortunately, legal development within multimodal transport has failed to keep pace with the speed of technical development. Bills of Lading, for example, have historically been working as receipts, but due to modern packing techniques, they have lost the normal evidence function they once had. Although there are some international regulations concerning freight forwarding services, they do not extend beyond the countries in which such conditions are used. When a dispute occurs between transport operators, which follow different regulations, the liability of the freight forwarders is unclear. Therefore, freight forwarders are in the need of harmonised legislation, especially concerning their liability for trademark infringements. Nonetheless, there are ways in which freight forwarder can avoid these disputes with right-holders, namely; by protecting themselves with legal cost insurance and via establish their liability through the use of contracts. However, Sweden and other Member States, which have not implemented the simplified procedure, should reconsider an implementation of it.

These paper studies the conflict arise by the non-authorized register of a domain name that incorporates a similar or identical reproduction of a trademark belonging to someone else. Specifically, it studies the practice known as warehousing or sale in auction of domain names. For this purpose, the article develops the concept of “Domain Names”, states its applicable regulation and gives a general description of the legal tools that have been used to solve the conflict mentioned above., Este artículo estudia el conflicto generado por el registro no autorizado de nombres de dominio que incorporan una reproducción idéntica o similar de una marca perteneciente a un tercero, en particular, el conflicto generado por la venta en subasta de nombres de dominio. En éste se analiza el concepto, los niveles y la regulación de los nombres de dominio, se discute sobre la naturaleza jurídica de éstos y se exponen las herramientas jurídicas utilizadas para la solución del mencionado conflicto.

In September 2008, a consignment of pirated batteries, which were marked with Panasonic’s trademark, were retained by Swedish Customs. Panasonic sent a warning letter to the freight forwarding company, Tavatur, demanding it to destroy the batteries through the simplified procedure in (EC) No 1383/2003. However, since Sweden has not implemented the simplified procedure, Tavatur was unable to destroy the batteries without a court order from Sweden. Panasonic therefore sued Tavatur, the legal dispute being what liability freight forwarders have for pirated goods. Due to technical developments within different modes of transport, freight forwarders’ role has changed over the last few decades, from simple duties where the freight forwarder held an intermediary position, to a more independent role in which they now have to be legally classified as either a carrier or an agent. Unfortunately, legal development within multimodal transport has failed to keep pace with the speed of technical development. Bills of Lading, for example, have historically been working as receipts, but due to modern packing techniques, they have lost the normal evidence function they once had. Although there are some international regulations concerning freight forwarding services, they do not extend beyond the countries in which such conditions are used. When a dispute occurs between transport operators, which follow different regulations, the liability of the freight forwarders is unclear. Therefore, freight forwarders are in the need of harmonised legislation, especially concerning their liability for trademark infringements. Nonetheless, there are ways in which freight forwarder can avoid these disputes with right-holders, namely; by protecting themselves with legal cost insurance and via establish their liability through the use of contracts. However, Sweden and other Member States, which have not implemented the simplified procedure, should reconsider an implementation of it.

1

1