DISSENTING OPINION PUTUSAN SENGKETA MEREK PIERRE CARDIN INDONESIA MELAWAN PIERRE CARDIN PERANCIS DALAM KAJIAN HUKUM ISLAM: Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 557 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article intents to examine the dissenting opinion in the judges consideration on the Supreme Court Decision No. 557 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015. This article is normative research with statute approach dan conceptual approach. The legal material on this research consist of primery legal materials namely Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademark and Supreme Court Decision No. 557 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015, while the secondary legal materials are books, journals, research related to trademarks. The judge decide to reject the application of Pierre Cardin because the petition of Pierre Cardin has passed a period of five years from the registration of Pierre Cardin Indonesia. However, the conclusion of this study revealed that Pierre Cardin entitled to be protected because it is a well-known mark. Finally, Pierre Cardin Indonesia has violeted the terms of article 4 jo article 6 paragraph (1) letter b of Trademark Law because he has a bad faith and had imitated the well-known mark.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".