Optimization of Legal Policies Against Trademark Rights Violations Based On Restitution
Article Sidebar
-
Legal Optimization, Trademark Rights, Restitution
Abstract
Background. Trademark counterfeiting is a significant violation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)and has emerged as an important issue within the legal and economic framework
Purpose. This research aims to analyse the basic concept of trademark infringement and how to optimize legal policy against restitution-based trademark infringement.
Methods. Using normative juridical research method (doctrinal) with a descriptive and analytical nature, data collection techniques are done through literature review, content analysis, and case studies with qualitative analysis.
Result. The results show that trademark infringement is an economic criminal offence that significantly harms the owner. Law Number 20 of 2016 still focuses on criminal punishment without guaranteeing the recovery of victims' losses.
Conclusion. Therefore, restitution as part of criminal sanctions is very important to realise complete justice. Implementation. By integrating restitution into the criminal process, Indonesian law can better protect intellectual property rights and provide fair and adequate protection for brand owners.
Full text article
References
Book
Birks, P. (2003). Unjust Enrichment. Oxford University Press.
Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government (Peter Lasl). Cambridge University Press.
Marzuki, P. M. (2005). Legal Research. Medium Pregnancy.
Sokanto, S. (1986). Introduction to Legal Research (3rd ed.). UI – Press.
Journal
Alif, F. P. N., & Aminah. (2024). Protection and Law Enforcement Against Counterfeiting of Famous Brands in Taman Puring Market, South Jakarta. Notary, 17(1), 173–189.
Anshary, M. R., Isradjuningtias, A. C., & Lekosono, A. B. (2024). A Study on Preventive Legal Protection Efforts for Trademarks in Indonesia Based on Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. Humaniorum, 1(4), 124–129. https://doi.org/10.37010/hmr.v1i4.33
Butticè, V., Caviggioli, F., Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., Stryszowski, P., & Thumm, N. (2020). Counterfeiting in digital technologies: An empirical analysis of the economic performance and innovative activities of affected companies. Research Policy, 49(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103959
Çapar, G. (2023). (Il)legitimacy of international intellectual property regime? Leiden Journal of International Law, 36(3), 721–747. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156523000146
Fajar Dian Aryani, Erwin Aditya Pratama, E. I. (2022). Optimizing the use of mediation as an alternative to resolving brand disputes. DICTUM: Journal of Legal Sciences, 9(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.24905/diktum.v6i2.98
Hamdiyah, H. (2024). Analysis of the Elements of the Crime of Theft: A Legal Review. Journal of Tahqiqa : Scientific Journal of Islamic Legal Thought, 18(1), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.61393/tahqiqa.v18i1.216
Indriani, W. A. and S. (2024). The principle of first to file in the context of brand protection in Indonesia. Solutions, 22(2), 197–212.
Karunia, A. D. (2024). Legal Protection of Creators Related to Unofficial Kpop Merchandise. Lex Positvis, 2(3), 403–422.
Mangkunegara, R. A. (2018). Corporate Sentencing in a Forestry Law Based on Legal Protection Against Victims. Rechtidee, 13(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.21107/ri.v13i1.3954
Manta, I. D., & Wagner, R. E. (2015). Intellectual Property Infringement as Vandalism. SSRN Electronic Journal, 18(1), 331–364. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2485206
Mohamed, Khadijah, R. W. (2022). Fighting counterfeiting: Importance of enforcement of intellectual property rights. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol.9, No.4 (2014) Fighting, 9(4), 249–257.
Muehlfeld, K., & Wang, M. (2022). Intellectual Property Rights in China—A Literature Review on the Public's Perspective. Frontiers in Sociology, 7(April), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.793165
Nanda Janusafitri, S. M. (2024). Legal Protection of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses. Notarius, 17(3), 2381–2398. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v17i3.57461.
Nur Tsani, I. F., & Ginting, R. (2021). Juridical review of the phrase without rights or against the law of having possession of narcotics (Study of Decision No. 1825/Pid.Sus/2019/PN. Jkt brt). Recidive: Journal of Criminal Law and Crime Management, 10(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.20961/recidive.v10i1.58863
Permatasari, A., Agustin, R. A., Aditya, D., & Author, K. (2024). The Influence of Brand Rights on Marketing Strategy and Product Differentiation in Indonesia. Doctrine: World Journal of Law and Politics, 2(3), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.59581/doktrin.v2i3.3311
Putri Mardi Utami, N. (2023). Legal Protection for Victims of Fraud in the Property Sector. COMSERVA Indonesian Journal of Community Services and Development, 2(11), 2610–2619. https://doi.org/10.59141/comserva.v2i11.668
Rahmi, M. A. N., & Aminah. (2022). Utilization the Economic Value of Intellectual Property (Copyright) as Collateral Object in Indonesia. Legal Brief, 11(5), 2742–2751. https://doi.org/10.35335/legal
Romandona, R., & Yasin, B. (2024). Legal Analysis of the Principles of Mens Rea and Actus Reus in the Case of the Murder of Brigadier Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabarat (Case Study in the Decision of the South Jakarta District Court No. 796/Pid.B/2022/Pn Jkt.Sel). Justitiable, 6(2), 1–12.
Saiman. (2018). Juridical Study of the Crime of Trademark Counterfeiting (Case Study of Yogyakarta District Court Decision Number: 354/Pid.Sus/2016/Pn.Yyk). Legal Dynamics, 9(3), 212–231.
Schall, A. (2024). The principle of unjust enrichment. The Principle of Unjust Enrichment, 1(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110754452
Shuhufi, M., & Firdayanti. (2023). A Comparative Analysis of Trademark Rights Protection. Mathematics, 5(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.24252/mh.vi.33009
Sinaga, N. A. (2020). The importance of intellectual property legal protection for Indonesia's economic development. Journal of Experimental Law, 6(2), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.31599/sasana.v6i2.385
Supriyanta. (2007). The Scope of Economic Crimes. Journal of Economics and Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 42–52.
Utama, Y., First, R. R., & Mayana, R. F. (2021). Brand Protection Based on Differentiating Power Level Reviewed from the Doctrine of Brand Dilution in Indonesia. Acta Diurnal Journal of Notary Law, 5(1), 139–153.
Laws and Regulations
Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945.
Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883 Paris Convention).
Website
Language Development and Development Agency in KBBI VI Online. (2024). The Meaning of the Word Forgery. Kbbi.Kemdikbud.Go.Id. https://kbbi.kemdikbud.go.id/entri/pemalsuan
Batik Tv. (2023). The Case of Counterfeiting the Sarung Brand in Pekalongan, Continues to Trial. Batiktv.Pekalongankota.Go.Id. https://batiktv.pekalongankota.go.id/berita/kasus-pemalsuan-merek-sarung-di-pekalongan-berlanjut-ke-persidangan.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Accessed 1 January 2025
Bazenkova, A. (2015). Apple Gets Damages From Russian Companies Selling Counterfeit Goods. Www.Themoscowtimes.Com. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2015/09/02/apple-gets-damages-from-russian-companies-selling-counterfeit-goods-a49298. Accessed 1 January 2025
BBC. (2007). Nike compensated over China fakes. Http://News.Bbc.Co.Uk/. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6956276.stm. Accessed 1 January 2025
Bhaktidesta. (2016). Not a Cheap Brand Like a New Warehouse That Plagiarizes a Salt Warehouse. Bhaktidestaalamsyah.Wordpress.Com. https://bhaktidestaalamsyah.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/rfc-bukan-brand-murahan-seperti-gudang-baru-yang-menjiplak-gudang-garam/
Public Relations of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of South Sulawesi. (2024). DJKI Firm on Intellectual Property Infringers, Evidence Worth IDR 535 Million Destroyed. Sultra.Kemenkum.Go.Id. https://sultra.kemenkum.go.id/berita-utama/djki-tegas-hukum-pelanggar-kekayaan-intelektual-barang-bukti-senilai-rp535-juta-dimusnahkan?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Accessed 1 January 2025.
Authors
Copyright (c) 2025 Grace Putri Hastino, Elina Fauziah, Vina Maylani, Teddy Asmara, Ari Nurhaqi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
