LEGAL CERTAINTY OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REVENUE IN INDONESIA BASED ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPROACH AND LEGAL COMPARISON

Ranti Fauza Mayana (1)
(1) Program Studi Kenotariatan Universitas Padjadjaran Bandung , Indonesia

Abstract

 
[Legal Certainty Of Industrial Design Revenue  In Indonesia Based On Intellectual Property Approach And Legal Comparison]  Protection of Industrial Designs, as well as intellectual property, is based on the ability of human creativity through creativity, taste and intention. According to Article 25 paragraph (1) TRIPs Protected Industrial Design Agreement is a new or original Industrial Design, this provision holds the principle that the novelty of a design is obtained when the design is differ from the previous, the novelty includes novelty and originality, the principal basis for the grant of Industrial Design, whereas this principle is not fully adopted in the provisions of Industrial Design. The Industrial Design Decree in Indonesia only requires novelty without clarifying how to interpret the novelty requirement so that a large number of Industrial Design Rights are obtained based on the Minor Change approach where slight differences in form and configuration have essentially demonstrated novelty. The minor change approach is considered to exclude the aspect of originality and is less able to provide legal certainty to the holder of the registered Industrial Design Rights. This paper aims to explore minor change approach as the basis for the evaluation of the novelty of Industrial Design in the perspective of comparative law in several countries of the world, namely the United States, Japan, the European Union and Australia as a study and reference material in an effort to establish protection of Industrial Design Rights in Indonesia that can provide legal certainty.
Keywords: Industrial Design Revenue, Comparative Law.

Full Article

Generated from XML file

References

Afori, O. (2008). Reconceptualizing Property in Designs. Cardozo Arts & Entertaintment Law Journal, 25(Maret), 1107–1108.

Australian Government. Article 16 (2) of Australian Design Act 2003. (2003).

Blakeney, M. (1996). Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights : A Concise Guide to the TRIPs Agreement. Great Britain: Sweet and Maxwell.

Chapter 1502.01. (2015). Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents [R-07.2015] United States Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. United State.

Community, I. P. (2005, March). Intellectual Property Community. Bulletin No.8, Bulletin No.8, APIC/JIII.

David I Bainbridge. (2002). Intellectual Property. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

European Community Design Regulation (CDR). Article 3 verse (1) of The European Community Design Regulation (CDR) (2002).

European Community Design Regulation (CDR). Article 3 verse (2) of The European Community Design Regulation (CDR) (2002).

I. Morris, A.I. and Quest, B. (1987). Design: The Modern Law and Practice. London: Butterworth.

Insan Budi Maulana. (2005). Bianglala HaKI. Jakarta: Hecca Mitra Utama.

J. Saidman, P. (1989). The Glass Slipper Approach to Protecting Industrial Designs or When the Shoe Fits, Wear it,. University of Baltimore Law Review, Volume 19,(Issue 1), 167–183.

Japan. Article 2 of Japan Design Act (Act No. 125 of April 13, 1959) (1959).

Japan. Article 5 verse (2) of Japan Design Act (Act No. 125 of April 13, 1959) (1959).

Japan. (2015). Design Act (Act No. 125 of 1959, as amended up to Act No. 36 of May 14, 2014). Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5079

Kawasoe, F. (2002). Outline of the Japaneese Design Law, Japan Patent Office (JPO). Asia Pacific Industrial Property Center (APIC) and JIII, 18.

McKeough, Jill - Stewart, Andrew and Griffith, P. (2004). Intellectual Property In Australia. Australia: Lexis Nexis Butterworts.

Pasal 1 angka 1 UU No. 20. Tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis (2016).

Pasal 1 ayat (1) UU No. 31. Tentang Desain Industri (2000).

Pasal 2 ayat (2) UU No. 31. Tentang Desain Industri (2000).

Property, A. C. on I. (2013a, September). Review of The Designs System. Australian Government, September, 9.

Property, A. C. on I. (2013b, September). Review of The Designs System. Australian Government, September, 21.

Saidin, O. (2007). Aspek Hukum Hak Kekayaan Intelektual. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.

Sayma Rahman, S. (2014). Industrial Design in Different Jurisdiction : A Comparison of Laws, ,. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol.19, Me, 223 – 228.

Schickl, L. (2013). Protection of Industrial Design in the United States and in the European Union – Different Concept or Different Labels? The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 16, March(1–2), 15–38.

Soeparman, A. (2013a). Desain Industri Berdasarkan Penilaian Kebaruan Desain Industri. Bandung: Alumni.

Soeparman, A. (2013b). Hak Desain Industri Berdasarkan Penilaian Kebaruan Desain Industri. Bandung: Alumni.

Soeparman, A. (2013c). Hak Desain Industri Berdasarkan Penilaian Kebaruan Desain Industri. Bandung: Alumni.

Soeparman, A. (2013d). Hak Desain Industri Berdasarkan Penilaian Kebaruan Desain Industri. Bandung: Alumni.

UNCTAD & ICTSD. (2005). Resource Book on TRIPs and Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

United States Code. (2001). Section 102 United States Code Title 35. United State.

USPTO. (2010). Relationship Between Design, Patent, Copyright and Trademark. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) USPTO 1512, Edisi Revi(Juli).

UU No. 31. Tentang Desain Industri (2000).

W. Gray, Brian and Bouzalas, E. (2001). Industrial Design Rights : An International Perspective. London: Kluwer Law International and International Bar Association.

Authors

Ranti Fauza Mayana
ranti_fauza@yahoo.com (Primary Contact)
Author Biography

Ranti Fauza Mayana, Program Studi Kenotariatan Universitas Padjadjaran Bandung

Dosen Program Studi Kenotariatan Universitas Padjadjaran Bandung

Article Details