The Implementation of Legal Certainty Principle in Trademark Law With Regards to the Right of Famous People to Sue Cybersquatter in Indonesia

  • Muhamad AMIRULLOH Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia
  • Helitha Novianty MUCHTAR Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia
  • Rika Ratna PERMATA Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia


The right to sue for famous people whose names or brands are used as internet domain names by cybersquatter has not been regulated in the Law on Trademark in Indonesia. This situation raises questions concerning the certainty of Trademark Law for famous people in claiming for civil compensation against cybersquatters. In this research, This study applies a normative juridical method focusing on the applicable legal provisions, The specification of this research is analytical descriptive, namely, by providing facts about the use of famous trademark names as internet domain names, as well as the right for the famous person to file a claim based on the provisions of the ITE and Trademark Law that can be used as a legal basis for compensation claims against cybersquatters.

Results show that the Trademark Law has not yet implemented the principle of legal certainty in protecting famous people who are victims of cybersquatting in Indonesia, particularly in regards to their right to sue for civil compensation, because it did not yet have norms or rules governing the right to claim for civil compensation for famous people whose trademarks (names) are used as domain names by cybersquatters. The concept of regulating trademark in Indonesia needs to include norms or rules regarding the right to sue for civil compensation for famous people who are victims of cybersquatting in Indonesia.


[1] Saravanan, A. 2013. Domain Name and Trade Dispute. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–12.
[2] Aunurrohim, M. 2018. The Certainty and Utility of Law in Indonesia. 1 September.
[3] Burshtein, S. 2005. Is a Domain Name Property? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 1 (1): 59–63.
[4] Callen, J.W. 2002. Asserting in Personam Jurisdiction over Foreign Cybersquatters. University of Chicago Law Review 69 (4): 1837–65.
[5] Lindsay, D. 2007. International Domain Names Law, ICANN and the UDRP, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2007, 211. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
[6] Chan, G. 2005. Domain Name Protection in Hong Kong: Flaws and Proposals for Reform. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 13 (2): 206–42.
[7] Deva, S. 2005. ‘What’s in a Name? Disputes Relating to Domain Names in India. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 19 (2): 165–81.
[8] Johnson, S.T. 2001. Internet domain name and trade mark disputes: shifting paradigms in intellectual property. Arizona Law Review, Vol 43, 465.
[9] Law, Trademark. 2016. The Law Number 20 of 2016 on Trademark and geographical Indication.
[10] Law, Corruption. 1999. Article 26 A of Law on Corruption Eradicatoin states that, Legal evidence in the form of instructions as set forth in Article 188 Paraghraph (2) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedural Law.
[11] Cornish, W., Llewelyn, D., and Alpin, T. 2003. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 5th edn, 586–592, London: Sweet & Maxwell.
[12] Lim, Yee Fen. 2002. Internet Governance, Resolving the Unresolvable: Trademark Law and Internet Domain Names. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 16 (2): 199–209.
[13] Lipton, J.D. 2008. Celebrity in Cyberspace: A Personality Rights Paradigm for Personal Domain Name Disputes. Washington and Lee Law Review.
[14] Mertokusumo, Sudikno. 1996. Legal Innovation: An Introduction. Yogyakarta: Liberty.
[15] Muhamad, A., and Nyulistyowati, S. 2015. Cybersquatting Terhadap Nama Orang Terkenal. Bandung: CV. Kalam Media.
[16] Mukti Fajar, Yulianto Achmad. 2013. Dualisme Penelitian Hukum Normatif & Empiris. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Belajar.
[17] Oppedahl, C. 1997. ‘Remedies in Domain Name Lawsuits: How Is a Domain Name Like a Cow? John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 437 437.
[18] Pornography, Law on. 2008. Article 5 of Law on Pornography states that, Anyone is prohibited to lend or download pornographic content as set forth in Article 1 Paragraph (1). law on pornography.
[19] Posner, R. 2001a. Public Intellectuals. The Stude of Decline.
[20] Sagama, Suwardi. 2016. Analysis of the Concept of Justice, Law Certainty, and the Utility of Law in Environment Management. Jurnal Pemikiran Hukum Islam Mazahib, 20-41.
[21] Sidharta. 2006. The Morality of Legal Professionals: an Offer of a School of Thought. Bandung: Refika aditama.
[22] Sumardjono, M.S.W. 1989. Guide to Composing a Research Proposal. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University.
[23] Unni, V.K. 2018. Transnational Influences in Trade Mark and Domain Name Protection: The Indian Experience. Locating India in the Contemporary International Legal Order, 185–203.
[24] Vezzani, S. 2014. ICANN’s New Generic Top-Level Domain Names Dispute Resolution Procedure Viewed against the Protection of the Public Interest of the Internet Community: Litigation Regarding Health-Related Strings. Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 13 (3): 306–46.
[25] Ware, S.J. 2002. Domain-Name Arbitration in the Arbitration-Law Context: Consent to, and Fairness in, the URDP. J. Small & Emerging Bus.
How to Cite
AMIRULLOH, Muhamad; MUCHTAR, Helitha Novianty; PERMATA, Rika Ratna. The Implementation of Legal Certainty Principle in Trademark Law With Regards to the Right of Famous People to Sue Cybersquatter in Indonesia. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 1, p. 20-27, mar. 2019. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 26 may 2024. doi: