Anak Agung Ayu Ngurah Sri Rahayu Gorda, I Gede Agus Kurniawan, Putu Aras Samsithawrati, Princess Alyssa D. Tee-Anastacio, Musallam Al Awaid

Bank Trademark Protection in the Digital Era: Comparative Study of Indonesia, United States, Oman

Introduction

Bank trademark protection in the digital era: comparative study of indonesia, united states, oman. Examines bank trademark protection in the digital era through a comparative study of Indonesia, US, and Oman. Proposes a trust-centered model for adaptive enforcement against digital infringements.

Abstract

This article examines the protection of bank trademarks in Indonesia, the United States, and Oman, representing Civil Law, Common Law, and a mixed civil–Sharia–GCC legal system respectively. It addresses two main questions: how differences in legal traditions shape the regulation and enforcement of bank trademarks in the digital era, and what model of protection can be formulated to make such protection more adaptive to technology‑based infringements while reinforcing depositor trust. Using a normative legal method with statute and comparative approaches, the study analyzes national trademark and banking regulations, international instruments such as TRIPS and the Madrid Protocol, GCC trademark rules, and relevant case law, interpreted through Lawrence M. Friedman’s legal system theory (structure, substance, and legal culture). The findings show that the United States provides the most advanced protection for bank trademarks through the combination of the Lanham Act, doctrines of likelihood of confusion and dilution, specific tools such as the ACPA and UDRP, and strong coordination with financial regulators. Indonesia and Oman have aligned their substantive rules with international standards, but face structural and cultural constraints, including fragmented inter‑agency coordination, the absence of fast‑track and online dispute resolution mechanisms for digital disputes, and limited institutional capacity. The article proposes a hybrid, trust‑centred model for Indonesia that strengthens substantive norms on bank trademarks, institutional coordination between IP, financial, and digital regulators, and rapid procedures for digital enforcement, while embedding consumer protection, good faith, and amanah as guiding principles.

Review

This article provides a timely and insightful comparative analysis of bank trademark protection in the digital era, examining Indonesia, the United States, and Oman as representatives of Civil Law, Common Law, and mixed legal traditions, respectively. The study effectively frames its inquiry around two critical questions: how diverse legal systems influence the regulation and enforcement of bank trademarks in a technology-driven landscape, and what adaptive protection model can be devised to counter digital infringements while bolstering depositor trust. Utilizing a rigorous normative legal methodology, coupled with statute and comparative approaches, the authors meticulously analyze relevant national and international instruments, including TRIPS and the Madrid Protocol, alongside case law, all interpreted through Lawrence M. Friedman’s illuminating legal system theory (structure, substance, and legal culture). This robust theoretical and methodological framework lays a strong foundation for the subsequent findings and recommendations. The findings reveal significant disparities in the maturity and effectiveness of bank trademark protection across the jurisdictions. The United States emerges as the most advanced, demonstrating a comprehensive protective framework through the integration of the Lanham Act, established doctrines of likelihood of confusion and dilution, specialized tools like the ACPA and UDRP, and robust coordination with financial regulators. In contrast, Indonesia and Oman, while having aligned their substantive rules with international standards, face considerable structural and cultural impediments. These include fragmented inter-agency coordination, a notable absence of fast-track and online dispute resolution mechanisms crucial for digital disputes, and limited institutional capacity. This differential outcome clearly illustrates the nuanced impact of a legal system's structural and cultural components on its ability to adapt to technological challenges, even when substantive laws are nominally updated. A significant contribution of the article is its proposal for a pragmatic, trust-centred hybrid model specifically tailored for Indonesia. This model advocates for strengthening substantive norms on bank trademarks, fostering greater institutional coordination between intellectual property, financial, and digital regulators, and implementing rapid procedures for digital enforcement. Crucially, it embeds principles of consumer protection, good faith, and *amanah* as guiding tenets, highlighting the importance of public trust in the financial sector. This forward-looking proposal offers a concrete pathway for jurisdictions grappling with similar challenges, moving beyond mere substantive alignment to address the complex interplay of structure, culture, and enforcement in the digital age. Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to the fields of intellectual property law, banking law, and comparative legal studies, providing both critical analysis and actionable recommendations for enhancing digital-era legal protections.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.