Group 3

Cynthia Putri Guswandi 1851033

Raihan Radinka Yusuf 1851034

Aozora Ratu Pitaloka 1851037

FARGO CASE

Chronology:

Fargo was a Bavarian born citizen and had German nationality. But he was
a child out of wedlock (illegitimate child). He then lived in France without
changing his nationality. One day he died in France and left his property
without a testament. Fargo's siblings from Germany came to France and
wanted to take the inheritance in the form of house property. But the French
government (named Dave) did not say yes because it was considered that
Fargo's inheritance was state property.

Legal issue:

Inheritance

Incidental Questions:

Lex Fori: French law and Germany law

1. Does the French law have a jurisdiction? No

2. Which law will take this case? French law

1. Does the Germany law have a jurisdiction? Yes

2. Which law will take this case? Germany law

Characterisation:

Fargo

Lex Patriae: Germany law

Lex Domicille: French law

Lex Situs: French law

Fargo’s siblings

Lex Patriae: Germany law

Lex Domicille: Germany law

Dave [the government people]

Lex Patriae: French law

Lex Domicille: French law

Lex Fori: French law and Germany law

Lex fori from French law; the issue of inheritance of movable objects must
be regulated according to the legal norms of the place where the testator
becomes a citizen.

Bavarian/Germany law rules stipulate that inheritance of movable objects

must be regulated according to the law of the place where the testator lives
every day. (habitual residence).

Connecting Factor:

Lex Causae: Germany law

The strongest link to the case is Germany law. Because Fargo was a
Bavarian (German nationality) and he never changed his nationality to
French. And the strongest reason is his lex patriae is Germany law.
Settlement process:

In the case of Fargo above according to Bavarian law, siblings of a

legitimate out-of-wedlock child are still entitled to receive inheritance from
the unmarried child. But in French law, the inheritance of the child outside
marriage will fall into the hands of the state.

Fargo’ siblings then filed a lawsuit to the France court.

In the first stage, the French judges appoint Bavarian law/Germany law in
accordance with the rules of French international law.

Apparently, the French judges considered the appointment as

gesamtverweisung (appointment of foreign law), so that it also included the
rules of Bavarian private international law.

Conclusion:

It is known, that the Bavarian [Germany] private international law rules

regarding inheritance of movable objects stipulate that the law that must be
used is the law of the permanent residence of the heir. So Bavarian
international law rules point back to French law (the law of the permanent
residence of the heir). It is at this stage that a renvoi occurs.

Public policy: French law doesn’t have a foreign element so the court sent
this file to the German court to finish the trial by using Germany law.

Renvoi:

Fargo’s siblings do filed a lawsuit to the France court but the judges sent
this case to the German court as renvoi.

Court Decision:

Fargo’s siblings won the case because the German court granted the lawsuit
from Fargo, the inheritance was finally given to them [brothers of Fargo].
GIANNI VERSACE VS V2 VERSI VERSUS

Chronology:

One day Gianni Versace, which is one of the well-known companies that
originated from Italy, wanted to sell its products to the sales market in
Indonesia, finally he registered his brand to Indonesia and after that his
brand had received protection in Indonesia. But there was a company that
imitated its brand with the name of V2 Versi Versus by Sutardjo Jono from
Medan, Indonesia. he also registered his brand in Indonesia. In the end
Gianni Versace felt that Sutardjo Jono had imitated his brand and without
the permission of the Versace, Sutardjo Jono registered the brand in
Indonesia and therefore Gianni Versace felt aggrieved by Sutardjo Jono's
actions. Gianni Versace felt that this was fraudulent behavior in the
business world, finally the party of Gianny Versace came to Indonesia and
met with advocates in Indonesia to ask for help in this case. Advocates
from Gianni Versace said that this case was brought to court in Indonesia
because this incident occurred in Indonesia and the Gianni Versace agreed
to it. In the end, advocate from Gianni Versace sued Sutardjo Jono in court
and the advocate told the judge that Sutardjo Jono had cheated in business
by imitating the brand of the company Gianni Versace.

Legal issue:
1. Tort (imitate of trademark)

Incidental Question:
Lex Fori : Indonesian law

1. Does the Indonesian court have a jurisdiction to try the case? Yes

2. Which law is going to try the case? Indonesian law

Characterisation:
Gianni Versace
Lex patriae : Italian law

Lex domicilli : Italian law

Sutardjo Jono

Lex patriae : Indonesian law

Lex domicilli : Indonesian law

Lex loci delicti commisi : Indonesian law

Connecting Factor :

Lex Causae : Indonesian law

The stongest link to the case is Indonesian law because Gianni Versace and
Sutardjo Jono have registered their trademark in Indonesia and this unlawful
act takes place in Indonesia.

Conclusion :
Lex fori : Indonesian law

Lex causae : Indonesian law

Public Policy:

In Indonesia not accepted for foreign element, so because this case happen
in Indonesia it means that this case must be trial in Indonesia court and
using Indonesian law to try the case.

Forum Shopping:

Advocate from Gianni Versace brought this case to indonesia court because
this case happen in Indonesia and advocate from Gianni Versace believes
that Indonesia court and Indonesian law can benefit his client

Court Decision :

The judge ruled that granting the Gianni Versace lawsuit was deemed to
have committed an unlawful act by imitating the Gianni Versace trademark
and did unfair acts in business, therefore the judge stated that the trademark
registered by Sutardjo Jono failed and sentenced Sutardjo Jono to pay this
court fee for 5 Million Rupiah.