IMPLEMENTASI KRITERIA PERSAMAAN PADA POKOKNYA ATAU KESELURUHANNYA TERHADAP SENGKETA PELANGGARAN MEREK PRODUK PASTA GIGI (Studi Putusan Nomor 30/Pdt.Sus.Merek/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst Jo. Putusan

A brand is a work that can be used, so that the brand has a very urgent position for the
smooth process of trading goods and services that can distinguish between one product
and another. There is a case of a Trademark dispute with the Commercial Court
Decision Number 30/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2020/Pn.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. There are differences in
consideration between the Panel of Judges at the Commercial Court and the Supreme
Court regarding the concept of similarity in principle or in its entirety, making it
problematic for the trademark infringement dispute. The research method used in this
study is Juridical-Normative. The results of the study through the case approach and
the statute approach, the Supreme Court applies Article 83 paragraph 1 of Law Number
20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications and states that the
word "Strong" in the brand is a general word which means strong and explains the
word Pepsodent which is the dominant element of the brand, which is not quite right.
To cancel the decision of the commercial court is not only Article 83 paragraph 1 but
also in conjunction with Article 74 paragraph 1 of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning
Trademarks and Geographical Indications. In handling trademark dispute cases, the
panel of judges should better understand the elements of the rules that have been
stipulated in the Trademark and Geographical Indications Law. And it is better for the
Plaintiffs to take legal action through non-litigation channels. As one of the efforts is to
conduct mediation by both parties in the context of deliberation in order to reach a
consensus regarding the ongoing Trademark Dispute.