Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Sapientia Diversalis: Journal of Human Interaction and Social Studies
Restu Ramania
Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
The Effectiveness of Administrative Dispute Resolution Through the Administrative Court and the Ombudsman in Administrative Disputes Dea Puspitasari; Restu Ramania; Santana Suryapringgana; Teguh Abdurrohman Shodiq; Taufiq Alamsyah
Journal of Human Interaction and Social Studies Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): : May: Sapientia Diversalis: Journal of Human Interaction and Social Studies
Publisher : CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.65310/bvt2z498

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of administrative dispute resolution through the State Administrative Court (PTUN) and the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia within Indonesia’s administrative law system. It employs a normative-doctrinal legal research design supported by comparative analysis of statutory instruments, doctrinal literature, and institutional frameworks governing administrative justice. The findings indicate a structural dichotomy between PTUN as a judicial body producing binding decisions and the Ombudsman as a supervisory institution issuing non-binding recommendations. This divergence generates an enforcement gap, particularly in the execution of PTUN judgments and the voluntary nature of Ombudsman compliance. The study further reveals fragmented coordination between both institutions, despite overlapping jurisdictional objects in administrative disputes. Such fragmentation reduces the overall effectiveness of administrative justice in ensuring legal certainty, accessibility, and substantive fairness. The research concludes that neither mechanism independently achieves optimal effectiveness without institutional integration. Strengthening normative harmonization, improving enforcement mechanisms, and clarifying procedural linkages are necessary to enhance system performance and public legal protection. The study contributes to administrative law discourse by proposing a conceptual framework for integrated administrative justice combining adjudicative and supervisory functions.  
Protection of Well-Known Trademarks Against Bad Faith: The Starbucks Dispute Azwa Khaliza; Naila Syafa AzZahra; Restu Ramania; Ikhwan Aulia Fatahillah
Journal of Human Interaction and Social Studies Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): :February: Sapientia Diversalis: Journal of Human Interaction and Social Studie
Publisher : CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.65310/7j8wty13

Abstract

The increasing globalization of trade has intensified trademark disputes involving well-known trademarks, particularly those arising from registrations made in bad faith. In contemporary trademark law, protection is no longer confined to similar goods or services, as the unauthorized use of well-known marks on dissimilar goods may create consumer confusion, dilute trademark reputation, and result in unfair competition. This study aims to examine the legal criteria for determining well-known trademark status and to analyze the legal construction of bad faith in trademark registration involving dissimilar goods through the Starbucks trademark dispute in Indonesia. The research employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials were collected through library research and analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. The findings reveal that the status of a well-known trademark is determined not only by formal registration but also by public recognition, promotional intensity, international reputation, duration of use, and market penetration. The study further demonstrates that trademark registration for dissimilar goods may constitute bad faith when intended to exploit the goodwill of a famous mark. Supreme Court Decision No. 836 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2022 confirms that the first-to-file principle cannot be applied rigidly when evidence of bad faith and the protection of a well-known trademark are at stake. The decision reflects a substantive approach that prioritizes fairness, consumer protection, and the prevention of unfair competition. These findings highlight the importance of balancing procedural certainty with substantive justice in strengthening the protection of well-known trademarks within Indonesia’s trademark law framework.
Co-Authors Azwa Khaliza Dea Puspitasari Ikhwan Aulia Fatahillah Naila Syafa Azzahra Santana Suryapringgana Taufiq Alamsyah Teguh Abdurrohman Shodiq