Petitioner Believes Norm in Trademark and GI Law Ambiguous

Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih, Saldi Isra, and Suhartoyo opening the panel petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications, Tuesday (5/17/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 | 15:07 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications (Trademark and GI Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, May 17, 2022.

On behalf of the Petitioner, legal counsels Fransiscus Arian Sinaga and Leonardo Siahaan explained before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih of the Petitioner’s legal counsel’s power of attorney, which had not been signed and had no duty stamp attached.

“In relation to the revised petition, we will consider your power of attorney. Now please convey the revisions to the petition,” Justice Enny said.

Sinaga explained the emphasis on the Petitioner’s profile, the Court’s authority, and the Petitioner’s legal standing. Then, Siahaan explained the revision to the petition’s background.

“There was a discrepancy between the interpretation in one decision and the other, which posed a serious issue in relation to Article 21 paragraph (1) of Law No. of 2016. We added the issue, which has led to unclear implementation of the aforementioned Article 21 paragraph (1), which we believe to be ambiguous,” Siahaan said.

Also read: Provision on Trademark Imitation Challenged

The case No. 50/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by entrepreneur Djunatan Prambudi. He alleged constitutional impairment due to the enactment of Article 21 paragraph (1) of the Trademark and GI Law. The elucidation, he asserted, seemed to be causing confusion to the criteria in a clear assessment of ‘giving rise to the impression of similarity, in terms of form, placement, writing, or combination of elements and speech sound similarities.’

The Petitioner believes this would lead to increasing trademark cancellation lawsuits to challenge any similarities in other trademarks and there would be parties harmed by the imitation of trademarks whose lawsuits are rejected by judges, leading to unhealthy competition. Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court grant the entire petition and declare the a quo article unconstitutional.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 5/17/2022 15:40 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 | 15:07 WIB 24