Nasywa Laffaiza
Universitas Tarumanegara

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

IMPLIKASI YURIDIS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 TERHADAP KEDUDUKAN UU NO. 11 TAHUN 2020 TENTANG CIPTA KERJA Andini Camelia; Cenlia Brigita Engkolan; Ika Rachmawati Sukarno Putri; Nasywa Laffaiza; Tazkia Tunnafsia Siregar
Media Keadilan: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Vol 14, No 1 (2023): April
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31764/jmk.v14i1.12200

Abstract

Constitutional  Court  Decision  Number:  91/PUU-XVIII/2020  which  granted  the  formal  test  of  Law  Number  11  of  2020  concerning  Job  Creation.  In  fact,  the  Judge's  Decision  is  intended  to  end  disputes  and  differences  in  interpretation  of  a  provision.  However,  this  Decis on  actually  creates  dualism  regarding  the  applicability  of  the  Job  Creation  Law,  because  on  the  one  hand  this  Law  is  declared  unconstitutional,  but  on  the  other  hand  this  Law  remains  in  effect  and  has  binding  legal  force.  This  juridical  issue  will  be  examined  using  normative  legal  research  imethods.  From  ithe  results  of  the  research,  it  was  concluded  that  the  meaning  of  conditional  unconstitutional  in  this  Decision  is  the  establishment  of  Law  no.  11  of  i2020  icontradicts  the  1945  Constitution  or  is  conditionally  (temporary)  unconstitutional.  This  temporary  unconstitutional  status  depends  on  conditions  in  the  form  of  an  obligation  for  legislators  to  make  improvements  to  the  formation  of  Law  no.  11  of  2020  for  ia  period  of  2  (two)  years.  As  for  the  2  (two)  year  period,  the  Job  Creation  Law  will  still  apply  based  on  points  '4'  iand  '6'  in  the  ruling.
Review Of The Intellectual Property Directorate General's Responsibility Regarding The Cancellation Of Well-Known Trademark Registration In The Same Class Of Goods Nasywa Laffaiza; Christine S.T Kansil
DE LEGA LATA: JURNAL ILMU HUKUM Vol 10, No 1 (2025): Januari-Juni
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30596/dll.v10i1.22274

Abstract

The responsibility of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) in canceling the registration of famous trademarks in the same class of goods is an important issue in the protection of intellectual property rights in Indonesia. This study aims to analyze the authority of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) in canceling the registration of well-known trademarks that are deemed to harm the owners of well-known trademarks, especially when the newly registered trademark is in the same class of goods. This review examines the responsibilities and authorities of DJKI based on regulations governing trademark cancellation, such as Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications, as well as decisions issued by DJKI related to trademark cancellation. This research also discusses the factors that influence DJKI's decisions in assessing whether a brand can be considered famous and whether the registration of a new brand can pose a risk of confusion in the market. The analysis results show that DJKI has a significant responsibility in maintaining the integrity of the trademark registration system and protecting the rights of famous trademark owners. This research provides recommendations on the importance of stricter supervision and law enforcement to ensure that famous brands are optimally protected from misuse and intellectual property rights violations in Indonesia