Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This study analyzes intellectual property rights disputes between PSGlow and MSGlow in terms of Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications (analysis of case decision number: 2/pdt.sus.HKI/Merek/2022/pn.niaga Sby) which aims to explain and analyze the basic considerations of Surabaya Commercial Court judges in accepting lawsuits, explaining and analyzing how is the legal protection of trademarks that have been registered based on Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications, explaining and analyzing whether there is an element of passing off between PS Glow and MS Glow based on Case Decision Number: 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI /Merek/2022/PN. Niaga Sby.The legal materials in this research are primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials using normative research methods.The basis for consideration is that a lawsuit was filed from PS Glow for the use of the brand without rights against MS Glow. and legal protection for brands that have been registered under Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications, namely that the penalties that will be imposed on these counterfeiters can be in the form of imprisonment, imprisonment and fines, as referred to in articles 100 to 102 of Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications. and between PS Glow and MS Glow there is no element of passing off based on Case Decision Number: 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek/2022/PN.Niaga Sby, because the MS Glow brand registers its brand in HAKI in class 32 with the classification of powdered drinks and PS Glow registered their brand on Intellectual Property Rights in class 3 with a cosmetic classification.