State Of Law: Measuring Advocate Organizations Compliance With Jurisdictions That Have Enforced Power Of Law
Abstract
This research is the output of the Research Contract 1075/D5/SPKP/LPPM/UNPAM/X/2021. The purpose of this research is to determine the compliance of the Advocate Organization with the name of the Perkumpulan Advokat Indonesia on a court decision that has permanent legal force related to the PERADIN organization brand dispute. The method used is normative research with a statutory approach and a case approach that occurred in the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court where the decision to be analyzed is the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Decision Number 6K/Pdt.sus-HKI/2016 dated 26 May 2016. Results The research shows that the advocate organization of the Perkumpulan Advokat Indonesia has illegally used the PERADIN Mark belonging to the Persatuan Advokat Indonesia and the decision has permanent legal force. Even though there has been a final and binding decision, the Perkumpulan Advokat Indonesia did not voluntarily implement the decision, and even filed 5 lawsuits in a row, 3 trademark lawsuits at the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court, 1 lawsuit at the Jakarta State Administrative Court and 1 Action Lawsuit. Against the Law at the North Jakarta District Court. The implication of this writing is to encourage advocate organizations to have compliance in carrying out judges' decisions that have permanent legal force so that the advocate organization has integrity in upholding a just law.
Keywords: Rule of Law, Legal Compliance, Organization of Advocates
References
Sannndhika, A. (2016). Imunitas Advokat Dalam Perspektif Hukum Pidana Indonesia (Doctoral dissertation, UNPAS).
Fatah, A. (2018). Peran Advokat dalam Penangan Kasus Litigasi. Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum, 13(1).
Nugroho, H. (2019). Peran Advokat dalam Mewujudkan Peradilan yang Berintegritas. Diktum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 7(1), 1-12.
Hartati, R., & Syafrida, S. (2021). Hambatan Dalam Eksekusi Perkara Perdata. ADIL: Jurnal Hukum, 12(1).
Susanto, S. (2019). Eksekusi Putusan Tanpa Hadirnya Tergugat (Studi Kasus Cv. Global Mandiri Sejahtera). Rechtsregel: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 1(2).
http://sipp.pn-jakartapusat.go.id/list_perkara/search diakses tanggal 19 Desember 2021
https://sipp.ptun-jakarta.go.id/list_perkara/search diakses tanggal 19 Desember 2021
http://sipp311.pn-jakartautara.go.id/list_perkara diakses tanggal 19 Desember 2021
https://pdki-indonesia.dgip.go.id/search?type=trademark&keyword=perkumpulan+advokat+indonesia&page=1 diakses tanggal 19 Desember 2021
https://peradin.id/ diakses tanggal 19 Desember 2021
Soeroso, F. L. (2013). “Pembangkangan†Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Yudisial, 6(3), 227-249.
Nggilu, N. M. (2019). Menggagas Sanksi atas Tindakan Constitution Disobedience terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 16(1), 43-60.
Permana, R. H. (2016). Analisis terhadap status pendaftaran Merek Logo Peradin yang telah dilindungi oleh hak cipta ditinjau dari undang-undang nomor 15 Tahun 2001 Tentang Merek (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Tarumanegara).
Khairandy, R. (1999). Perlindungan Hukum Merek Terkenal di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 6(12), 68-79.
Betlehn, A., & Samosir, P. O. (2018). Upaya Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Merek Industri UMKM Di Indonesia. Law and Justice, 3(1), 1-11.
