JURISDICTION REPORT: PERU
EXPENSES AND COSTS IN INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES
Alain C. Delion Estudio Delion
Te granting of expenses and costs on behalf of the winning party by the Peruvian administration is a thorny issue, in the context of infringement procedures for the undue use of registered brands.
It is appropriate to carry out a brief explanation of the terms ‘expenses’ and ‘costs’ under the supplementary application of the rules of the Civil Procedure Code, which states that “Te provisions of this code apply additionally to other procedural rules, whenever they are compatible with their nature.”
Tere is also a definition of costs and expenses entered in the code. ‘Costs’ are the court fees, fees for legal aid bodies and other legal costs incurred in the process. Costs include the fees of the winning party’s attorney, plus 5 percent for the Bar Association of the respective judicial district for Mutual Fund and to cover lawyers’ fees in Legal Aid cases. References to the judiciary (in the word ‘court’) are related to administration. ‘Legal fees’ in this context means ‘administrative fees’, and so on.
Furthermore, as stated in Article 411, it should be noted that it is not necessary to apply the percentage allocated to the bar where the procedure takes place, because to mount a defence through the administrative channel, that is INDECOPI, it is not mandatory to consult a lawyer (although it is advisable, due to the specialist issues raised).
With this legal framework we can make useful definitions: ‘expenses’ are all the charges such as legal professional fees, operating expenses, etc; ‘costs’ means the government fees or administrative fees incurred in the procedure.
Current law provides us with the possibility that resolutions approving the payment of expenses and costs become enforceable titles, and could be executed subsequently before the judicial channel by means of a relatively fast procedure compared to most judicial cases (approximately five months).
For this reason, we must take special care over the filing documentation. It has to be very specific regarding the existence and value of the costs and expenses, as this will lead to a title that will be easily enforceable before the judicial channel and could be guaranteed, in consequence, with the precautionary measures contemplated in the procedural law.
In the case of taxes which have been paid in instalments, supporting documentation must be enclosed as well as an explanation for the division before the Peruvian administration, in order to prove the requirement stated by Article 418 of the code, which states: “Article 418: Origin of costs—To enforce the payment of costs, the winner must accompany the
www.worldipreview.com
“TO ENFORCE THE PAYMENT OF COSTS, THE WINNER MUST ACCOMPANY THE INDUBITABLE AND DULY DATED DOCUMENT WHICH PROVES THEIR PAYMENT, AS WELL AS THE CORRESPONDING TAXES.”
indubitable and duly dated document which proves their payment, as well as the corresponding taxes. Based on the documents submitted, the judge will approve the amount.”
Tis is another requirement that must be taken into account to make the payment of costs and expenses, as it clearly prevents anyone inventing ghost costs.
Tere are two precedents which the Peruvian trademark administration issued concerning these matters. In one, it approved a resolution for a settlement of $8,202 for expenses and $280 for costs (Res. 1957-2012/ CSD-INDECOPI). In the other, settlement was approved for the amount of $1,668.75 for expenses and $110 for costs (Res. 1951-2012/CSD- INDECOPI).
Te payment of expenses and costs is a useful tool for those users who have incurred high costs to claim the protection of their IP rights, allowing the reimbursement of expenses that would not have been incurred if the offenders had respected the rights granted by the administration.
Finally, it is necessary to recognise the value of these tools granted to trademark owners by means of the DL No. 1075, the current Peruvian IP law, allowing recovery of the amount spent on the protection of their IP rights through a procedure that will ensure judicial enforcement, with advantages such as recovery of the amount and the possibility of seizing or sequestering the offender’s goods, if they do not pay the debt in cash.
Alain C. Delion is an IP partner in the international department at Estudio Delion. He can be contacted at:
acd@estudiodelion.com.pe
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012 109
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 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128