The advancement of information technology has driven the growth of the creative industry, which heavily relies on intellectual works, one of which is trademarks as part of the Intellectual Property Rights regime. A trademark not only serves as a product identity but also as a marketing tool and a determinant of reputation. However, in practice, legal issues often arise, particularly related to the registration of trademarks by parties acting in bad faith and having substantial similarities with previously registered trademarks. This research analyzes the Application of the Principle of Bad Faith in the trademark registration process in the trademark dispute "C+Logo" between Gunawan and PT Bagava Alam Semesta. Through descriptive analysis research with a normative juridical approach, the results of this study indicate a violation of the principle of bad faith in the trademark registration conducted by PT Bagava Alam Semesta because it meets the principle of bad faith violation as examined in accordance with the Trademark and Geographical Indications Law.

Consumer disputes may be resolved by non-litigation or litigation, with the latter being reserved for extreme cases. Companies are obligated to pay customers' compensation claims. The parties to a dispute should not be unfairly treated when the burden of evidence is not evenly distributed. In order to avoid an unfair burden of evidence mistakes that hurt other parties, the burden of proof has to be examined case by case. Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection specifies the burden of evidence in Article 28. When it comes to enforcing the law in Indonesia, doctrines are accepted sources of law from outside the country. An interesting topic for debate is the regulation and use of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in consumer dispute resolution in Indonesia. This method has a normative legal bent. The Consumer Protection Law does not explicitly govern the res ipsa loquitur notion, even though it is acknowledged in Indonesian consumer dispute settlement. Applying res ipsa loquitur to consumer disputes may help ensure fairness, which is in line with the Consumer Protection Law's established reverse burden of proof.
 

The purpose of this study is to analyze the legal certainty  of  implementation  voting  online for reconcilliation agreement in the suspension of payment  scheme.  During the Covid-19Pandemic, the government issued various policies regarding social activities that would be carried out in court which were carried out  online, now they can be carried out  online, including the agenda for voting  for  reconcilliation agreement in PKPU.  However, there is no legal basis for voting online for  reconcilliation agreement in PKPU, so there is legal uncertainty regarding this implementation.  The research method used in this research is normative juridical. The results of the research obtained are that there is certainty from the implementation of voting  online for reconciliation agreement in the suspension of payment  scheme by referring to SEMA No. 1 of 2020 as legitimacy which states that judges can carry out activities in court boldly in order to reduce the spread of Covid-19. The implementation of the online voting  online for reconciliation agreement  as a whole still refers to the  UU KPKPU  and  thats  derivative regulations. The novelty of this research is to examine the validity or legal certainty of the implementation of the voting online for  reconcilliation agreement in PKPU  scheme.Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kepastian hukum dari pelaksanaan voting online rencana perdamaian dalam skema penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang (PKPU). Pada masa pandemi Covid-19, pemerintah mengeluarkan berbagai kebijakan mengenai pembatasan sosial yang mengakibatkan kegiatan di pengadilan yang semula dilaksanakan secara langsung, kini dapat dilakukan secara daring, termasuk agenda voting rencana perdamaian dalam PKPU. Akan tetapi, tidak ditemukan landasan hukum dari voting online rencana perdamaian dalam PKPU, sehingga terdapat ketidakpastian hukum terhadap pelaksanaannya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian yang didapat ialah bahwa terdapat kepastian hukum dari pelaksanaan voting online rencana perdamaian dalam skema PKPU dengan merujuk kepada SEMA No. 1 Tahun 2020 sebagai legitimasi yang menyebutkan bahwa hakim dapat menyelenggarakan kegiatan-kegiatan di pengadilan secara daring demi menekan angka penyebaran Covid-19. Adapun pelaksanaan dari voting online rencana perdamaian secara keseluruhan masih merujuk kepada UU KPKPU dan peraturan turunannya. Kebaruan dari penelitian ini ialah mengkaji keabsahan atau kepastian hukum terhadap pelaksanaan voting rencana perdamaian secara online dalam skema PKPU.