LEGAL PROTECTION FOR BRAND RIGHT OWNER FAMOUS FOR HIS BRAND IMMEDIATE (Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Number 7 K/pdt.sus- HKI/2016 between Sheraton International and PT. Graha Tunas Mekar)

Article Info Abstrak Received : 27/07/2021 Approved: 10/08/2021 DOI: 10.24815/sklj.v5i2.21850 Brand equality can cause harm to brand owners. Therefore, the legal protection of trademarks is very important. In this study, the authors will analyze the Supreme Court Decision No. 7K/pdt.sus-HKI/2016 whose purpose is that the consequences of the law of imitation of famous brands can be known and know the legal protection for owners of well-known brands if their brands are imitated. This research is descriptive and classified as normative legal research and uses existing data. Based on research, the famous brand ST. REGIS belonging to the plaintiff entered the list of registrants in Indonesia first, therefore the defendant's mark REGIS@the Peak at Sudirman has been registered with unfavorable conditions. The defendant's mark is essentially the same as the plaintiff's mark for similar and dissimilar services, as a result, the defendant's mark must be removed from the general register of marks. According to the law, Sheraton Internasional as the owner of the famous ST.REGIS brand won against REGIS@ the Peak at Sudirman.

In supporting national development in the field of business and economy, Intellectual Property Rights cannot be avoided to enter into our legal system because trade and industry need these rights (Saidin, 1997).
In the brand there is a difference in the division, namely branded trade can be in the form of goods that use the mark in every trade by a legal entity or other person. Meanwhile, for every service that is used by a person simultaneously or a certain legal entity uses each of its trade marks, it is known as a service mark. Likewise with collective brands where every goods and services traded by the owner of the product/service has the same characteristics so that goods or services of the exact same type can be distinguished by the owner of the goods or services (Hariyani, 2010).
In creating a brand, the thing that needs to be done is to register the mark in advance so that it can be legally protected as described in Law no. 15 of 2001 article 28, the protection of a mark will take effect within a period of 10 (ten) years starting from the date of receipt or the extension of the period of protection (Mark Law No. 15, 2001).
Not all trademarks can be registered and taken for granted. According to Law no. 15 of 2001 Article 5 regarding marks states that if the label is recorded in a form that is contrary to established legal regulations such as the absence of distinguishing power and so on, or it can be owned in general or the goods and services are related to those requested by the registrant (Isnaini, 2001). 2010).

II. RESEARCH METHOD
The research has a normative juridical type. This research is descriptive, so interpretation or analysis is needed (Waluya, 2007 The power to use the ST.REGIS label will be the authority of the first registrant as plaintiff I. The ST.REGIS brand is a well-known brand that has been around for a long time. The similarity of brands owned by the plaintiff with the defendant, has similarities in visuals, pronunciation, and  (3) Globally owned, (4) Goods/services registered by the applicant are interconnected (Mark Law No. 15, 2001).
The defendant's mark has been filed in bad faith because the defendant should have stopped using the REGIS@ The Peak at Sudirman mark . There is a distinguishing factor of a trademark that cannot be registered with a rejected label. An unregistered mark is a brand that has an inadequacy of the brand, while a rejected brand is a brand status that can cause harm to other parties (Miru, 2005).
The reason for the cancellation of the trademark registration lawsuit by the defendant is that the plaintiff's ST.REGIS mark is a well-known mark. Plaintiff I owns the ST.REGIS brand which was previously registered in Indonesia for similar services. Meanwhile, the defendant's mark REGIS@ The Peak at Sudirman which has been registered has bad intentions. The plaintiff received a court decision and official recognition of the protection of the word REGIS in ST.REGIS from Singapore and ST.REGIS is a well-known mark that has complied with the Law on Marks article 6 paragraph 1 letter (b) regarding the requirements for superior labels.
Because of these various things, the plaintiffs submitted an application to the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court in order to justify all the claims filed by the plaintiff, but the defendant felt that the decision was detrimental to him, so the defendant filed an exception where the plaintiffs were not entitled to file a lawsuit. , because the plaintiffs' lawsuits have expired, the lawsuits are vague, and the lawsuits are premature. According to HIR, after the trial in court was opened by the presiding judge of the trial, legal resistance or verweer could immediately be carried out by the defendant or his legal advisor in the form of an expedition (Anarchy, 2016). The content of the plaintiff's lawsuit contains a formal violation, thus the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court must reject the claim filed by the plaintiff.
The cassation request together with the objections must be submitted in accordance with the time procedure specified in the law so that the cassation request can be formally accepted. The request for filing a cassation can be made within 14 days after the court's decision notifies the defendant regarding the notification of his cassation. Each mandatory cassation memorandum submitted by the applicant, which includes various kinds of information explaining the reasons for the applicant and within 14 days after the application is completed, immediately submits it to the clerk of the court of first instance who has decided the case (Ignatius, 2014).
After carefully examining the submission of a cassation objection by the Cassation Applicant contained in the memorandum of cassation that Judex Facti in fulfilling every requirement that has been required by the laws and regulations has experienced negligence so that the decision is immediately annulled by the party concerned. Judex Facti ignores and draws different conclusions and decides negligently and without sufficient legal consideration. As a result of this negligence, the any sanctions will be imposed on the defendant with the condition that he must pay court fees at all levels of the judiciary.

7K/pdt.sus-HKI/2016
In a subsequent decision, the Supreme Court Judge will automatically judge: (1)  Thus, in the doctrine of identical or nearly resembles, the basic thing to observe is the goal or desire to complement the glory and excellence of other entrepreneurs' brands. When the label used is the same as someone else's then this can be said as a bad act (bad faith) because the profits that have been taken are carried out in an unhealthy manner. For example, there is jurisprudence of the GUCCI and HITACHI types of brands (Ramli & Amirulloh, 2002).
Various kinds of cases of trademark infringement in general very much occur because the similarities they have are at the main point or as a whole. Every violation that occurs can be carried out by the general inspection apparatus and sometimes it does not mean that the violators always make these mistakes. A trademark registration should be rejected, but the trademark inspection officers are still registered, because that can harm the real trademark owner (Khairandi, 1994).
Therefore, according to the decision in the deliberation meeting of the Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court, the imitation of the mark will result in legal consequences of canceling the registration of the REGIS@ the Peak at Sudirman mark as decided by the Supreme Court Number 7K/pdt.sus-HKI/2016, the registration of the mark is abolished. from the general list of brands.

Legal Protection for Owners of Famous Mark Rights based on Supreme Court Decision Number 7K/pdt.sus-HKI/2016
A well-known brand in the Supreme Court decision Number 7K/pdt.sus-HKI/2016 that there is a similarity of the core name of the brand, where the brand ST. REGIS with REGIS@ The Peak at Sudirman. The owner of a well-known mark will get legal protection if it has been registered, but experts still do not agree on the meaning of the well-known mark, a brand is said to be well-known or not, it is known from how many people at large recognize it. In essence, if the brand is widely recognized by the public, it can be decided that the brand is already well known.
As we have read in the decision, there are similarities in the subject of certain brands, then later proves the impression or similarity in terms of form or a combination of several elements contained therein.
Article 6 (1) letter (a) of the Trademark Law; "The point of the existence of similarity is basically that the brand of the product is exactly the same as the product whose brand is prominently the same in terms of its elements, so that this seems to be the same in terms of shape or similarity of speech sounds, and others in each brand are also exactly the same" .
With the proof that Judex Facti in considering the results of the examination of the defendant due to an error in applying the provisions on the basic similarities, it clearly violates the principle of the judge's freedom to decide a case on the decision that has been decided, in other words the plaintiffs who were originally the petitioners cassation requesting the panel of judges at the cassation level to state their right to be given the authority to cancel each Judex Facti decision and conduct an independent examination of the a quo case that rejected the applicants when filing their lawsuit. Everyone who has good intentions will always be given legal protection such as good behavior implied in Article 4 of the Trademark Law.