Implications of Perhutani's CANOPY Brand Use for Nature Tourism After Trademark Registration Rejection by DGIP
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/iccle.v6i4.14037Keywords:
Implications, Canopy, Perhutani TourismAbstract
Perum Perhutani has experienced an increase in tourism, necessitating standardization through the "Canopy" certification as a management guideline. This is regulated under the Decree of the President Director of Perhutani Number 2026/KPTS/DIR/2017 concerning the Standardization of Nature Tourism Management for Perum Perhutani, aimed at improving product and service quality, preserving forest sustainability, and benefiting the community. However, the "Canopy" service mark proposed by Perhutani was rejected by DJKI. The rejection was based on the similarity in pronunciation and type of goods with the registered mark "The Canopy." In fact, the two marks operate in different fields: "Canopy" for tourism services (class 39) and "The Canopy" for stationery (class 16). Thus, their products do not directly compete. The rejection of the "Canopy" mark is considered inconsistent with Article 21 of Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The absence of legal action from Perhutani has resulted in the inability to use the mark, as it risks violating Article 100 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the same law. This research employs a juridical-empirical method with a qualitative approach through observation, interviews, documentation, and literature review. The findings indicate that Perhutani has complied with Article 5 paragraph (1) of the Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy Number 27 of 2014 concerning Recreational Park Business Standards through the "Canopy" certification. This has provided ecological, social, and economic benefits, as well as improved facilities and services. The rejection of the "Canopy" mark has caused financial losses at several tourist locations. Rebranding cannot proceed without a replacement name, causing the standardization program for nature tourism management to halt. The researcher recommends that Perhutani promptly create a replacement name for the certification so that the standardization program can continue and be applied to other Perhutani tourist destinations.
References
Almunadia, Ega Silvana, Tien Fabrianti Kusumasari, and Iqbal Santosa. “Perancangan Enterprise Architecture Untuk Sistem Terintegrasi Design of Enterprise Architecture for Integrated System in Ecotourism and Agroforestry Perum Perhutani Using Togaf Adm.” E-Proceeding of Engineering 6, no. 2 (2019): 8175–85.
Anugrah, Sendy. “Unsur Persamaan Pada Pokoknya Dalam Pendaftaran Merek Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Merek Dan Indikasi Geografis Dan Penerapannya Dalam Praktik Dihubungkan Dengan Pelanggaran Terhadap Merek Terkenal.” Aktualita (Jurnal Hukum) 2, no. 1 (2019): 18–37. https://doi.org/10.29313/aktualita.v2i1.4663.
Astawa, I G P, M H SH, S H Agus Widjajanto, and ... Metodelogi Penelitian Bidang Hukum, 2023.
Azhari, and Abdul Holiq. “Kolaborasi Dan Kerja Sama Pengelolaan Obyek Wisata Alam: Kendala Dan Di Era Otonomi Daerah.” Journal of Tourism and Creativity 1, no. 2 (2017): 1–20.
Damayanty, Dyah Norma, and Ikhsan Budi Riharjo. “Mekanisme Pertanggungjawaban Pengelolaan Keuangan Objek Wana Wisata Coban Parang Tejo Malang.” Jurnal Ilmu Dan Riset Akuntansi 9, no. 10 (2020): 1–15. http://jurnalmahasiswa.stiesia.ac.id/index.php/jira/article/view/3677.
Jannah, Maya. “Perlindungan Hukum Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (Haki) Dalam Hak Cipta Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Ilmiah Advokasi 6, no. 2 (2018): 55–72. https://doi.org/10.36987/jiad.v6i2.250.
Lecture, Inaugural, Adebambo Adewopo, and Intellectual Property Law. According To Intellectual Property : A Pro-Development Vision of the Law and the Nigerian Intellectual Property Law and Policy Reform in The, 2012.
Maulina, Lina. “DEMOKRASI DALAM PEMIKIRAN JOHN LOCKE DAN AL-FARABI.” Monetary Policy Report, 1, no. October 2021 (2021): 105–12.
Nurma Fitriani, Selvi, Dyah Ochtorina Susanti, and A’an Efendi. “Perlindungan Hukum Pemegang Hak Merek Yang Sesuai Dengan Karakteristik Hak Merek.” Jurnal Rechtens 11, no. 2 (2022): 239–56. https://doi.org/10.56013/rechtens.v11i2.1783.
Cecep Tedi Siswanto, Pelaksanaan Hukum Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (Haki) Terhadap Desain Industri Pada Industri Kerajinan Bambu Di Wilayah Kabupaten Sleman, Cakrawala Hukum: 35–73.
Rozek, Richard P. “Protection of Intellectual Property Rights.” Intellectual Property Rights in Science, Technology, and Economic Performance: International Comparisons, 2019, 31–46. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429044502-3.
Setiadi, Agus Razian, and Nanang Indardi. “Analisis Potensi Pariwisata Olahraga Rekreasi Via Ferrata Di Taman Rancah Kabupaten Pemalang.” Nutrition Research and Development Journal 02, no. November (2022): 21–33. https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/nutrizione/.
Simatupang, Taufik H. “Sistem Hukum Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual Dalam Rangka Meningkatkan Kesejahteraan Masyarakat.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 17, no. 2 (2017): 195. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2017.v17.195-208.
Starman, Adrijana Biba. “Starman, A. B. (2013). The Case Study as a Type of Qualitative Research.” Journal of Contemporary Education Studies 1, no. September 2014 (2013): 28–43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265682891.
Syam, Muhammad Haeruddin, Jolanda Altje Meiske Rawis, Roos Marie Stella Tuerah, and Mozes Markus Wullur. “Optimization of E-Learning Learning at Vocational School in Selatan Minahasa (Case Study at North Sulawesi Shipping Polytechnic).” International Journal on Integrated Education 5, no. 6 (2022): 72–77.
Downloads
Published
Article ID
14037Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 The Indonesian Journal of International Clinical Legal Education

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.








