ANALISIS YURIDIS PENGGUNAAN ISTILAH UMUM SEBAGAI PENENTU PEMAKAIAN MEREK YANG MEMILIKI PERSAMAAN PADA POKOKNYA. Studi Kasus: Putusan No 30/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. Juncto Putusan No 332 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021

Similarity in essence becomes one very important indicator in the assessment of trademark registration. Because trademarks that violate other trademarks because there are similarities in essence, not only harm the producer, but also the public as consumers and even the state is harmed. This research aims to: (1) to know the comparison of judges' consideration in the first instance and cassation level in the use of general terms; and (2) to know the suitability of judges consideration of the use of general terms as a determinant of the use of trademarks that have similarities in essence. The type of research used in this research is normative juridical using data collection techniques through literature study. The results showed that: (1) in the decision Number 30/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. The Panel of Judges argued that the Plaintiff in this case was proven legally as the owner of the registered trademark "Strong" and as the first registrant. Meanwhile, in Decision Number 332K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021, the Panel of Judges argued that the word strong is not a word invented by the Plaintiff and the word contains the meaning of strong or adverb, so it should not be registered to obtain rights to the word; and (2). Consideration of the Supreme Court Judge in Decision No. 332 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021. related to similarities in essence, the judge did not see any similarities in essence to the two trademarks This means that there are no similarities in essence to the two trademarks, similarities in essence based on Article 21 of Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications is the similarity of the dominant elements in the trademark. The panel of commercial judges assessed the similarity in essence to the two trademarks only on the similarity of the class of goods of the goods.