Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
2.076
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal LAW REVIEW Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM Jurnal Daulat Hukum Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Law Development Journal Prosiding Konferensi Nasional PKM-CSR Bhayangkara Law Review
Alum Simbolon
Unknown Affiliation
Humanities Control & Systems Engineering Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Nursing Public Health Social Sciences

Published : 15 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 15 Documents
Search

 1   2 
Summary Proof of Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations Through Act Number 37 of 2004 (Study of Decision Number 7/PDT.SUS-PKPU/2022/PN NIAGA MEDAN) Simbolon, Alum; Chandra, Catherine Aureulli
Law Review Volume XXII, No. 3 - March 2023
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Village, Tangerang 15811 - Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v22i3.6908

Abstract

Debt is a liability that arises through an agreement made between a debtor and a creditor. Debt is used as a basis for bankruptcy or for submitting a delay in payment of the debtor's debt. Summary Proof of Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) has actually been regulated in Article 8 paragraph (4) of Law Number 37 of 2004 and strengthened by Supreme Court Decision (MA) No.109/KMA/SK/IV/2020 concerning "Enforcement of the Handbook for Settlement of Bankruptcy Cases and PKPU". Summary Proof can be a reference for the Panel of Judges in granting PKPU applications by debtors or creditors to the Commercial Court. The PKPU application submitted through Decision Number 7/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2022/PN Niaga was rejected by the Panel of Judges because the Panel of Judges considered that the non-fulfillment of the 'simple debt' requirement that had to be fulfilled was one of the burdens of proof in the application for PKPU.
Responsibility of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property regarding The Passing Off Case Between Starbucks Coffee & Starbucks Cigarettes (Case Study 836 K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2022) Simbolon, Alum; Vonny, Vonny
Law Development Journal Vol 6, No 1 (2024): March 2024
Publisher : Universitas Islam Sultan Agung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30659/ldj.6.1.94-110

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine the responsibility of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) and to examine the considerations of the Panel of Judges regarding the brand passing off case between Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Cigarettes based on Decision Number 836 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2022. DJKI's responsibility in cases of passing off brands has not been specifically regulated and written in a statutory regulation. However, DJKI has an obligation to comply with court decisions that have permanent legal force in brand cancellation lawsuits. Therefore, DJKI's responsibility for the case of brand passing off between Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Cigarettes based on Decision Number 836 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2022 is to cancel the registration of the Starbucks Cigarette Brand with registration number IDM000342818 in class 34 owned by the Defendant, PT STTC from the Register Brand General. Furthermore, the considerations of the Panel of Judges in Decision Number 836 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2022 are in accordance with and were guided by Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Brands and Geographical Indications. The Panel of Judges has determined PT STTC as the party found guilty of violating Article 21 section (1) letter c and Article 21 section (3) of the MIG Law as well as the Panel of Judges has also determined that the Starbucks brand owned by Starbucks Corporation is a well-known brand based on the criteria regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia No. 12 of 2021 concerning Trademark Registration.
Analysis of Solaria Brand Dispute Resolution with Solaris (Case Study No. 775 K/PDT.SUS-HKI/2021) Simbolon, Alum; Cindy, Cindy
Jurnal Daulat Hukum Vol 7, No 1 (2024): March 2024
Publisher : Magister of Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30659/jdh.v7i1.36565

Abstract

This research discusses the dispute between the SOLARIA and SOLARIS brands in Indonesia, focusing on Decision No. 775 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021. It aims to analyze the considerations of the Panel of Judges in resolving the trademark dispute and determine the protection of the SOLARIA brand against the SOLARIS brand in the mentioned decision. The findings reveal that the Plaintiff, as the owner of the SOLARIA brand, is the registrant and first user of the brand under the first-to-file system. Consequently, the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the SOLARIA brand, which is recognized as a well-known brand based on registrations in various countries. The Defendant's registration of the SOLARIS mark is considered to be in bad faith due to significant similarities in terms of shape, sound, and pronunciation. This suggests that the Defendant registered the mark solely for their own business interests, misleading consumers and causing harm to other parties. Accordingly, the Directorate General of Intellectual Property should reject the Defendant's SOLARIS trademark application under Article 21 paragraph (1) letter a of the MIG Law. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the SOLARIA brand, obtains legal protection through the resolution of this case via a legal process. The Panel of Judges granted the Plaintiff's lawsuit and declared the SOLARIS brand invalid according to the law. The cassation request submitted by the Defendant was also rejected, providing repressive legal protection for the Plaintiff.
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST TRANSACTION MODES INTERNATIONAL TRADE Widya Romasindah Aidy; Alum Simbolon; Rr. Dijan Widijowati
Bhayangkara Law Review ##issue.vol## 1 ##issue.no## 1 (2024): June 2024
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31599/c52v2f39

Abstract

In the era of globalization, transnational crime is an inevitable trend as the lines between nations become more unified. One form of transnational crime that is very disturbing to various countries is money laundering which has several modes and one of them is international trade transactions. This mode is done through a Letter of Credit (L/C) document as a means. The purpose of this study is to determine the form of regulation against money laundering in the mode of international trade transactions and understand its law enforcement against the mode of international trade transactions. The type of research used is normative juridical research with a statutory approach to find out the overall legal regulations governing the examination of documents in L/C, and a conceptual approach using a way of looking at legal principles in legal theory. The result of this study is that the Government has regulated the use of L/C through Permendag Nomor 94 Tahun 2018, especially for exports of minerals, coal, oil and gas, and palm oil. This regulation requires the use of L/C from domestic banks for certain types of exports and imposes sanctions for violators of this regulation and its enforcement against abuse of the authority of credit facilities by banks through L/C, must immediately prioritize the improvement, improvement, and renewal of the Banking Law accompanied by firm law enforcement and managerial improvement of banking.
Summary Proof of Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations Through Act Number 37 of 2004 (Study of Decision Number 7/PDT.SUS-PKPU/2022/PN NIAGA MEDAN) Simbolon, Alum; Chandra, Catherine Aureulli
Law Review Volume XXII, No. 3 - March 2023
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan | Lippo Village, Tangerang 15811 - Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19166/lr.v22i3.6908

Abstract

Debt is a liability that arises through an agreement made between a debtor and a creditor. Debt is used as a basis for bankruptcy or for submitting a delay in payment of the debtor's debt. Summary Proof of Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) has actually been regulated in Article 8 paragraph (4) of Law Number 37 of 2004 and strengthened by Supreme Court Decision (MA) No.109/KMA/SK/IV/2020 concerning "Enforcement of the Handbook for Settlement of Bankruptcy Cases and PKPU". Summary Proof can be a reference for the Panel of Judges in granting PKPU applications by debtors or creditors to the Commercial Court. The PKPU application submitted through Decision Number 7/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2022/PN Niaga was rejected by the Panel of Judges because the Panel of Judges considered that the non-fulfillment of the 'simple debt' requirement that had to be fulfilled was one of the burdens of proof in the application for PKPU.
Co-Authors Aidy, Widya Romasindah Calvin Pramarta Chandra, Catherine Aureulli Christina N.M. Tobing Christina NM Tobing Christina NM. Tobing CINDY CINDY Cindy Leowardy Leowardy, Cindy Meilani Meilani Ricky Banke Rolib Sitorus Sinaga, Irene Puteri Alfani Sofia Sryani Br. Ginting Sryani Ginting Vonny Vonny, Vonny Widijowati, Rr. Dijan