This study aims to analyze the roles and authorities of the Geographical Indication Protection Community (MPIG) and the Government in protecting Purwaceng Dieng against geographical indication infringements, as well as to identify factors that hinder the effectiveness of legal protection against geographical indication infringements of the Purwaceng Dieng product. The issues examined stem from the gap between the normative regulation of Geographical Indications and its implementation in institutional practice. This study uses an empirical juridical method with a legislative and case approach, with data obtained through literature study and interviews, then analyzed qualitatively in a descriptive-analytical manner. The results of the study show that normatively, the legal framework has provided clear legitimacy and authority to the MPIG as well as the government's obligation to provide guidance and supervision. However, in practice, protection has not been optimal. The MPIG has not taken formal legal action against the unauthorized use of the name “Purwaceng Dieng,” while there are still business actors who are not members or do not comply with the standards in the Description Document. These obstacles are influenced by legal factors that have not been fully implemented, the limited institutional capacity of the MPIG, a lack of supporting facilities and infrastructure, low public awareness of the law, and a legal culture that does not yet strongly and consistently support the geographical indication protection system. Keywords Geographical Indication, MPIG, Legal Protection, Purwaceng Dieng
Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.