Akibat Hukum Bagi Notaris Atas Pembuatan Akta Pengalihan Merek yang Belum Terdaftar

Merine Harie Saputri

doi:10.55606/concept.v3i2.1212

Authors

Merine Harie Saputri Universitas Narotama Surabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55606/concept.v3i2.1212

Keywords:

Transfer of Rights, Trademark, Notary Legal Consequences

Abstract

Transfer of rights is a legal event in which the ownership rights of one party are transferred to another party preceded by certain conditions or agreements justified by law. Marks as assets in the form of intangible objects can be transferred according to the provisions of Article 41 paragraph 1 Law number 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications. There are additional arrangements regarding the process of transferring rights contained in the provisions of article 41 paragraph 8, namely the transfer of rights to a mark can be carried out at the time of application for a mark. As is well known, marks that are still being applied for at the Directorate of Marks and Geographical Indications may not necessarily be registered in the General Register of Marks, so that applications for marks being transferred do not yet have a strong basis of rights as the object of the transfer agreement. Notary is a position that is given the authority to make an authentic deed. Based on article 1 number (1) of Law Number 2 of 2014 concerning Amendments to Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning Notary Offices Of course, with this authority, the Notary Office is expected to be able to fulfill the interests of the appearers to realize their interests stated in the deed, especially making agreements trademark transfer that is still being applied for. In this study, the authors focus on the validity of the trademark transfer agreement that is still being applied for and the legal consequences for the notary who makes the agreement if the applied mark cannot be registered in the General Register of Marks based on the trademark laws and regulations on the position of notary public and other applicable laws. interrelated and based on research conducted by the authors.

References

Agung Sujatmiko. (2010). Perjanjian lisensi merek terkenal. Jurnal Mimbar Hukum-Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 22(1), 124. Dikutip dari Anne Fitzgerald, (2004), Intellectual Property in Principle, Law Book Co, Sydney, 363.

Cantika, D. P. (2018). Pembatalan hak merek yang telah dijadikan jaminan fidusia. Jurnal Yuridis, 5(1), 1-22.

Isnaeni, M. (2016). Pengantar hukum jaminan kebendaan. Surabaya: Revka Petra Media.

Istilah Openbare Amtbtenaren yang terdapat dalam Pasal 1868 BW diterjemahkan menjadi Pejabat Umum oleh R. Subekti dan R. Tjitrosudibio, Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata, Pradnya Paramita, Jakarta, 1983.

Jened, R. (2007). Hak kekayaan intelektual penyalahgunaan hak eksklusif (Cetakan I). Airlangga University Press. Dikutip dari Anthony D’ Amato & Doris Estelle Long, (1996), International Intellectual Property Anthology, Anderson Publishing, Cincinnati, 25-26.

Jened, R. (2015). Hukum merek (trademark law) dalam era global & integrasi ekonomi (Cetakan 1). Jakarta: Kharisma Putra Utama.

Jotyka, G., & Suputra, I. G. K. R. (2021). Prosedur pendaftaran dan pengalihan merek serta upaya perlindungan hukum terhadap merek terkenal menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2001. Ganesha Law Review, 3(2), 125-139.

Kasenda, S. (2017). Perjanjian lisensi antara pemilik hak terdaftar dengan penerima lisensi menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis. Lex Privatum, 5(9).

Pramurti, R. D. (2018). Akibat hukum pengalihan hak atas merek terdaftar berdasarkan akta hibah wasiat. Notarius, 11(1), 130-140.

Subekti. (2001). Pokok-pokok hukum perdata (Cetakan XXIX). Jakarta: Intermasa.

Sulastri, S., & Hidayat, N. (2022). Aspek hukum perjanjian lisensi terhadap merek berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016. Jurnal Yustitia, 23(1).

Waworuntu, A. F. B. R. (2022). Pengalihan hak merek berdasarkan perjanjian (tinjauan menurut hukum merek Indonesia). Lex Privatum, 10(1).