Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum Problematika Hukum
Sujana Donandi S
President University
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Dinar Candy, pornography, freedom of expression, and the law Sujana Donandi S
Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum Vol 13, No 2 (2022): August 2022
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Merdeka Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26905/idjch.v13i2.6517

Abstract

Dinar Candy expressed her feeling to PPKM by wearing bikini in the road-side which caused her be stipulated as the suspect of pornography. Dinar Candy’s case brought to the conception on the limitation of pornography interpretation and the determination on freedom of expression in action of wearing bikini. The research is conducted through a qualitative approach using secondary data. The results show, first: pornography is limited by ‘subjective reason’ such as if the pornography is aimed for personal interest, then the action is not pornography. The other is ‘action-room limitation’ in which an action can be formulated as pornography if the standard and characteristic in the room where the action is done considering that the action is obscene or aims to sexual exploitation. The room refers to specific places such as beach, roadside, hotel, or other specific place, not wide social room. Second: If someone’s feeling is expressed by wearing bikini in a room which based on its decency standard allows to wear bikini, then the action can be determined as freedom of expression. In contrary, in a room where bikini is considered against morality, or it is spread to public, then such action is against the pornography law.How to cite item: Donandi S, S. (2022). Dinar Candy, pornography, freedom of expression, and the law. Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum, 13(2), 202-213. DOI:https://doi.org/10.26905/idjch.v13i2.6517.
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ON THE OWNERSHIP OF TRADEMARK WITH SIMILARITY (CASE STUDY BETWEEN GUDANG GARAM VS GUDANG BARU) Selly Marcelina; Sujana Donandi S
Problematika Hukum Vol 3, No 1: January 2017
Publisher : President University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33021/ph.v3i1.652

Abstract

One of the difficulties arising from the provisions of Law no. 15 of 2001 regarding trademark is the lack of clear guidelines to determine the criteria of a well-known and famous trademark. One of the disputes on a famous trademark was between Gudang Garam and Gudang Baru that has been settled by the Supreme Court through decision No. 162 K /Pdt.Sus-HKI/2014. Problems in this research are regarding the Legal Consequences of the Verdict of the Supreme Court Number 162 K / Pdt.Sus-Hki / 2014 and how to determine the ownership of Trademark with Similarity. The methodology of this research is normative-empirical which is the combination of normative and empirical legal research. The results show that The verdict of Supreme Court Number 162 K/ Pdt.Sus-Hki/2014 determined that as long as a trademark has been registered in Indonesia, the trademark will be given a legal protection even though the trademark has similarity with other trademark that has been famous in many other countries. This verdict is not coherence with indonesian trademark law that does not admit trademark upon a trademark with similarity. The criteria of the determination of the equation basic elements in a famous brand that is the similarity of images, phenotic, names, words, letters, numbers, color arrangement or combination of such elements.
Co-Authors Selly Marcelina