The brand determines the product for a company in terms of reputation and product quality.
Thus, the actions that was used for the aim of carrying out equality in essence on the brand
are considered unbeneficial and the brand can be protected to avoid any acts of brand
offense. Therefore, this study focuses on the act of violating the "Milo" brand on PT. Nestle
Indonesia that was carried out by the “Camilo” brand. The purpose of this study is to find
out how to resolve cases of "Milo" brand offense on PT. Nestle Indonesia that was carried
out by the “Camilo” brand. The case approach was analyzed to see the arguments for the
implementation of the settlement of brand offense actions in the use of the Milo brand on PT.
Nestle Indonesia and its regulation in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Brands and
Geographical Indications. In analyzing the case, this study uses empirical research
methods, namely conducting interviews with the relevant sources (PT. Nestle Indonesia, who
did not want to be named). Brand offense committed by Camilo on PT. Nestle Indonesia,
namely “Milo” has been negotiated by parties from PT. Nestle Indonesia in 2008 which
resulted in Camilo products having to be removed from the market and taking down their
products that were circulating on the Internet and stopping their production, because they
already have similarities to the product "Milo" in this case is a brand violation in the form
of design, composition that same with Milo.