Similarity In Indonesia Trademark Law

Consumer confusion is something that Trademark Law wants to prevent. This is so that consumers who initially intend to buy goods with a particular trademark are not deceived to buy other items similar to that trademark. To prevent this, the trademark law prohibits the use of trademarks that have similarities to cause consumers to be confused, deceived. Consumers must get protection that when he buys an item with brand A, it is certain that he buys the item with the quality and source produced by brand A.This principle in Indonesia is termed similarity principle. Problems regarding similarity basically arise when a trademark with one another has similarities in principle but in different classes of goods and or services. Before the existence of the Trademark Law , there was a legal vacuum regarding equality in principle for goods and or services that were not of the same type.This causes Well Known Mark owners to suffer because there are brands that have similarities in principle with the famous brand. The case example is BMW v BMW BODY MEN WEAR , IKEA v IKEMA. Several questions emerge from the above discussion. First, how Indonesian trademark law regulates similarity? Second, how is the implementation of trademark similarity in Indonesia? The regulation of Trademark similarity in Indonesian Trademark Law has not provided clear guidance in determining similarity in principle. The absence of clear guidelines can lead to uncertainty and injustice for the parties because it is very dependent on the subjectivity of the judge who decides on a case. The implementation of trademark similarity in Indonesia is still inferior because the Judge only focuses on finding similarities and differences between the trademarks in dispute without focusing and considering on Trademarks goodwill and reputation.