TINDAKAN PEMBONCENGAN MEREK TERHADAP SENGKETA MEREK DAGANG MS GLOW DAN PS GLOW (Studi Kasus PN Niaga Surabaya Nomer 2/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/PN Niaga Sby)

The Trademark Law does not directly explain the passing off, but it can be
interpreted with the provisions contained in Article 21 of the Trademark Law. In
the field, there are still brands with almost the same names as well as the way they
are pronounced, so what registered trademark holders can do is to protect their
rights from acts of passing off which can lead to public misleading, such as the case
between Ms. Glow and PS. Glow. Based on the above, this paper raises the
formulation of the problem, How is the judge's consideration regarding the passing
off action between the MS GLOW and PS GLOW trademarks at the Surabaya
Commercial Court in decision No.2/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/PN Niaga Sby? And what
about the Executor of the Supreme Court Decision Number 161 K/Pdt.Sus-
HKI/2023. Then the author of this paper uses normative juridical methods with
statutory approaches and conceptual approaches. The legal materials used are
primary and secondary legal materials. From the results of the research carried
out, it can be concluded that the judge's considerations regarding the passing off
of the MS GLOW and PS GLOW trade at the Surabaya Commercial Court in
decision No.2/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek/PN Niaga Sby decided in favor of the plaintiff
on behalf of PS Glow. And the implementation of the judge's sentence was to give
MS Glow a fine of 38 billion for passing off PS Glow