JURISDICTION REPORT: PERU
A REALITY CHECK IN TRADEMARK CASES
Fayssy C. Delion Estudio Delion
We welcome the decision issued by the Peruvian Trademark Office (INDECOPI) that upheld the opposition against the registration of the trademark BILLALCON SURFERS and logo in Class 25 by Jose Almeida Contreras.
Clearly the registration would damage the interests of our client GSM (Operations) from Australia, owner of the well-known brand BILLABONG, which uses the same type of letter font in some of its logos.
Regrettably, the first administrative instance issued Resolution N º 1020-2010/ OSD dated May 3, 2010, using an unusual definition of the local surfing apparel market, found that products covered by the mark in conflict produced a different pronunciation and intonation, despite of the fact that BILLALCON SURFERS and BILLABONG shared some similar letters and sounds. Tey also added that the requested trademark included figurative elements, while the registered brand was merely a group of letters that produce a different visual impression.
Te second administrative instance, reviewing similar jurisprudence related to applicants who have applied for similar marks to BILLABONG in the past, issued the Decision No. 581-2011/TPI, dated March 16 2011, finding that the presence of BILLA as well as the syllables (I-A-O) in the same phonetic sequence caused a likelihood of confusion among consumers. In consequence it overturned the first administrative instance decision and denied the requested mark.
We believe this case sets a very good precedent, which reflects the feelings of those who have impotently watched similar marks being granted simply because they were not copied exactly. In this case, the counterfeiters changed the final elements of the mark BILLABONG, in order to achieve a distinction that supposedly prevented the risk of confusion, but which in practice was totally false.
We hope this trend continues in opposition cases, because it demonstrates the fact that the Peruvian trademark office is taking into account the practical aspects of each case, and not just following old recipes that coldly analyse, allowing clearly-similar brands coexist in the market, favoring confusion and increasing market inefficiency.
We strongly believe that this case is an example of INDECOPI sharpening its process to protect the market against counterfeits, as well as helping all market participants to find sufficient and correct information before taking a decision. Tis in turn makes the market more efficient and benefits entrepreneurs and consumers.
Fayssy C. Delion is the vice president of Estudio Delion. He can be contacted at: fcd@
estudiodelion.com.pe
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011 81
“THE PERUVIAN TRADEMARK OFFICE IS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF EACH CASE, AND NOT JUST FOLLOWING OLD RECIPES THAT COLDLY ANALYSE, ALLOWING CLEARLY-SIMILAR BRANDS TO COEXIST IN THE MARKET, FAVOURING CONFUSION AND INCREASING MARKET INEFFICIENCY.”
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