JURISDICTION REPORT: PERU
THE JUDICIARY IN ACTION AT LAST
Alain C. Delion Estudio Delion
Te Peruvian judiciary provided a pleasant surprise recently, with its view of an appeal against a Peruvian Patent and Trademark Office (INDECOPI) resolution rejecting a trademark opposition case.
Te case involved an opposition filed by one of our clients, who has a trademark registered in Peru under class 30, against a nearly identical Peruvian trademark application in class 32.
Tere is a relationship between the goods in classes 30 and 32, since products such as biscuits, bread, cookies and candies, covered by class 30, are sold in the same places as some of the goods protected by class 32 (cakes, for example). Tey are also consumed in similar situations, such as children’s parties.
Te reason for the surprise is that, in most cases, the judiciary confirms INDECOPI’s second instance decisions, perhaps because of their ignorance of the relevant administrative rules—in this case, decision 486 of the Andean Community.
However, in this case, the Superior Court found (contrary to INDECOPI) that there was a relationship between the goods in classes 30 and 32.
In effect, the court stated that “both types of products belong to a large sort of alimentary sweet flavour goods for human consumption and they are part of the half-day or mid-aſternoon snacks”.
It added: “In spite of the fact that the goal of goods in class 32 is to quench thirst, class 32 products and confectionery goods in class 30 may both aim to satisfy consumer taste at any time as well as for special celebrations. In consequence, both signs potentially cover products under the same banner, therefore in this case, there is a competitive connection.”
Moreover, “although the products in this case are not identical, it is important to take into account that confectioneries are complemented by a refreshing drink, which can be found at the same store, warehouse or event, so it can be assumed that the average consumer would think both products have the same entrepreneurial origin”.
For these reasons, the judges found that there were sufficient elements of competitive connections capable of generating likelihood of confusion in consumers. Tis meant that it is not possible for the two signs to coexist in the market, taking into account the grounds for prohibition of registration in article 136 of decision 486 of the Andean Community.
In this resolution, the judicial channel, in contrast to past practice, has ordered: the annulment of the rejection of the opposition; denial of the registration of the applied mark; and grant of the registration on behalf of our client in class 32.
www.worldipreview.com
Tis shows a new trend that is useful for facilitating market management and operation, where the judiciary understands that on trade issues, it is very important to have useful guidance. Tey have decided to correct the errors of previous judgments, and are promoting legal certainty for all market participants.
Hopefully, this is the beginning of a change in the judicial tendency to resolve administrative issues. It will also ensure that they are really undertaking an examination of the issues that require judicial decisions—a touchstone for the success of the market as well as for attracting investment to Peru.
Alain C. Delion is an intellectual property partner of the international department at Estudio Delion. He can be contacted at:
acd@estudiodelion.com.pe
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2010 91
“ THIS SHOWS A NEW TREND THAT IS USEFUL FOR FACILITATING MARKET MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION, WHERE THE JUDICIARY UNDERSTANDS THAT ON TRADE ISSUES, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE USEFUL GUIDANCE.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108