Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search
Journal : Amicus Curiae

TINJAUAN YURIDIS MENGENAI KLAIM ASURANSI JIWA YANG TIDAK DIBAYARKAN OLEH ASURANSI JIWA BERSAMA BUMIPUTERA 1912: Juridical Review of Life Insurance Claims That Are Not Paid By Asuransi Jiwa Bersama Bumiputera 1912 Septianita, Khalisha Erfira; Lestari, Suci
AMICUS CURIAE Vol. 1 No. 2 (2024): Amicus Curiae
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/amicus.v1i2.19753

Abstract

AJB Bumiputera 1912 does not pay the insurance claims of its policyholders, especially the policies belonging to Mrs. Marlindawati and Mr. Rudhi Mukhtar. The problem is how is the form of AJB Bumiputera 1912's responsibility for non-payment of insurance claims to its policyholders based on insurance law. The research method used is normative, descriptive-analytic in nature, the main data is secondary data supported by interviews, the method of collecting data is by means of literature studies and interviews, qualitative analysis and the method of drawing conclusions is by means of a deductive method. The conclusion of the research is that according to insurance law AJBB must be responsible based on Article 40 paragraph (1) POJK 69/2016, but because AJBB is in the form of a joint venture, Article 33 paragraph (5) AD AJBB regulates losses to be borne by the policyholder as well. Suggestion: AJBB to immediately resolve its liquidity problems and fulfill its obligations and its policyholders can use deliberations to reach a consensus, mediation and arbitration, and file for PKPU or bankruptcy.
PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI KONSUMEN YANG MENERIMA UANG KEMBALIAN DALAM BENTUK BARANG ATAU PERMEN: Legal Protection For Consumers Who Receive Change Money In The Form Of Goods Or Candies Chandra, Shyerla; Lestari, Suci
AMICUS CURIAE Vol. 1 No. 2 (2024): Amicus Curiae
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/amicus.v1i2.20003

Abstract

This research was conducted at Shop X in Tanjung Pendam Village, Belitung Regency, which gives candies or goods, as change money of their consumers’ bill. The problem in this article is what’s the reason of shop X gives candies or goods as change money? and does this violates the Consumer Protection Law? And what kind of legal efforts for the consumers who receive candies or goods as change money according to the Consumer Protection Law and related regulations? The first conclusion is that Shop X using candies or goods as change money because it has runout of small change or coins and this violates Article 4 Section (a), (d), (g) and Article 7 Section(a), (c) Consumer Protection Law. Second, the legal efforts that the consumers can submit a complaint to the store manager and if no response is received, then they make a complaint to the National Consumer Protection Agency and settle disputes through the Consumer Dispute Settlement. Consumers must be smart to know and understand theirs rights and taking the right steps and business owners must prepare sufficient coins for change money.
KRITERIA PERSAMAAN PADA POKOKNYA DALAM SENGKETA MEREK TIMBERLAND DENGAN MEREK TIMBERLAKE: Substantial Similarity Criteria in The Timberland With Timberlake Trademark Dispute Amelia, Putri Sherina; Lestari, Suci
AMICUS CURIAE Vol. 1 No. 3 (2024): Amicus Curiae
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/mgstfn27

Abstract

- The dispute on the Timberland brand with the Timberlake brand happened caused by substantial similarity which was being sued on similarities in pronunciation, type of goods, and visuals which decided in Commercial Court Decision Number 42/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst and Number 881 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021. The problem in this journal is how to determine the substantial similarity criteria in the dispute on the Timberland and Timberlake brands based on Article 21 (1) of Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications? and whether the implementation of substantial similarity criteria on Commercial Court Decision Number 42/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst jo. Number 881 K/Pdt. Sus-HKI/2021 is  fulfill Article 21 (1) of Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications? The results of the study, the determination of the substantial similarity criteria of the dispute on the Timberland and Timberlake brands is accordance  Article 21 (1) of Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications and the implementation of the substantial similarity criteria on Decision Number 42/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2020/PN.Niaga. Jkt.Pst is not fulfill the criteria on Article 21 (1) of Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications and the implementation of the substantial similarity criteria in Decision Number 881 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2021 is fulfill the criteria on  Article 21 (1) of the Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications
ANALISIS TANGGUNG JAWAB SHOPEE SEBAGAI PENYEDIA SISTEM ELEKTRONIK TERHADAP PENJUALAN LIPTINT VARIAN GLOSSY STAIN DARI EMINA YANG SAMA SECARA KESELURUHAN OLEH TOKO CANTIK. QUENBEE: Shopee's Responsibility for the Sale of Emina Liptint Glossy Stain Variant by Store Cantik.QueenbeeV Fortuna, Natasya; Lestari, Suci
AMICUS CURIAE Vol. 1 No. 4 (2024): Amicus Curiae
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/a55ybj91

Abstract

This research discusses the analysis of Shopee's liability in handling the sale of products that violate intellectual property rights, especially trademark rights. The problem in this article are whether the Emina Liptint Brand Emina Production is the same as a whole, sold by Cantik.Queenbee at Sshopee is a trademark infringement according to the Trademark Law? and how Shopee's legal liability as an electronic system provider against the sale of liptin glossy stain variants of the same Emina as a whole. The first conclusion is that there is a trademark infringement of Emina's glossy stain variant liptint products sold by Cantik.Queenbee at Shopee, which violates Article 100 paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. Second, Shopee's liability as an electronic system provider is seen through EIT Law article 15, Government Regulation IEST article 5, Government Regulation TES article 22 paragraph (1), CL No. 5 of 2016. Cooperation is needed between the Ministry of Communication and the Directorate General of Intellectual Property to develop more effective regulations related to brand infringement in the marketplace.