IPTango
Hi! Welcome to our blog for intellectual property law and practice in Latin America
Hola, bienvenido a nuestro blog de Derecho y práctica de la propiedad intelectual en Latinoamérica
Olá! Boa vinda a nosso blog para a lei da propriedade intelectual e a prática na América Latina

An early Christmas present: Collectives Marks *for free*

 
The Peruvian Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Proteccion de la Propiedad Intelectual (INDECOPI) has granted 164 collective marks to associations located in the Region of San Martin benefiting several localities in the Region such as: Tocache, Shunte, Nueva Bambamarca, Nuevo Progreso, Moyobamba, Lamas, Bellavista, Rioja, Nueva Cajamarca, Juanjuí, San José de Sisa, Chazuta, Shanao, Tarapoto y Yurimaguas. The producers and artisans benefited by the marks were based on cocoa, coffee, ceramics, textiles, and the tourism sector.

The project/incentive
In accordance with the Decreto Supremo No. 092-2018 / PCM, in force since September 5, 2018, till September 5, 2019, the fee for the registration applications of collective marks which were presented by associations of producers, artisans, among others, from across the country, would be waved.

Moreover, through the Center for Intellectual Property Development (CEPI) the producers and artisans received advice ‘on the classification of products to distinguish, search and evaluate registration records, filling of forms, review of the requirements, among other important advice.’ Other state entities were also of assistance.

The full list can be found here (in Spanish)

México – Ley de Salvaguardia contra plagio a Culturas Indígenas y Afromexicanas

El principal objetivo de la denominada Ley de Salvaguardia de los Conocimientos, Cultura e Identidad de los Pueblos y Comunidades Indígenas y Afromexicanos es evitar el plagio de obras, artesanías, prendas típicas, artículos, entre otros, y garantizar su cultura e identidad nacional.

Según el Dictamen de las Comisiones "la salvaguardia se entiende como el conjunto de medidas de carácter jurídico, técnico, administrativo y financiero para la preservación y enriquecimiento de los elementos de la cultura e identidad de los pueblos y comunidades (...) que incluyen, entre otras acciones, la identificación, documentación, investigación, protección, promoción, valorización, transmisión y revitalización de esos elementos".

La iniciativa surgió en respuesta a la “laguna jurídica” que existe y facilita que personas ajenas a las comunidades indígenas y afromexicanas se apropien de las expresiones culturales de dichos grupos sin hacer ninguna retribución a cambio. Entre 2012 y 2019, se registraron 39 casos de plagio de al menos 23 marcas de ropa nacionales e internacionales que se han apropiado de diseños de comunidades indígenas.

La nueva ley define como "inalienables, indivisibles e imprescriptibles los derechos colectivos de propiedad de los pueblos y comunidades, respecto de sus conocimientos, cultura e identidad y de las manifestaciones materiales que de ella deriven". Entre los objetos protegidos se contemplan artesanías y prendas típicas, así como el patrimonio intelectual (tradiciones, prácticas, etc.).

Se prevé la aplicación de sanciones para aquellos que reproduzcan, copien o imiten los elementos de los pueblos indígenas sin autorización, así como para quien utilice o aproveche –con fines de lucro y sin autorización– elementos de la cultura e identidad de los pueblos y comunidades indígenas. Las sanciones van de multa económicas hasta prisión de 3 a 10 años.

A partir de la página 102 se puede consultar el texto de la Ley de Salvaguardia.

Estaremos pendientes de la aprobación final de la ley y de su correspondiente publicación en el Diario Oficial de la Federación.


* Créditos: imagen extraída de SinEmbargo.

Latest news from Brazil

 

Over the weekend, I read that the last week of November the Brazilian Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INP) signed two essential Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

1. INPI and the European Patent Office (EPO) MoU was based on an Enhanced Technical and Strategic Partnership aims to improve cooperation between Brazil and Europe in the area of patents. The time frame of the MoU is a two-year work plan which is agreed between the two institutions.
INPI’s president declared the memorandum as an important piece which will ‘stimulate investment in innovation and industrial property, focusing on the generation of new patents, especially in partnership.’
Both offices also renewed their Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program among their respective offices. 
More information here.

2. INPI and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) signed the Patent Prosecution pilot project Highway (PPH). This will take effect on December 1, 2019. http://www.inpi.gov.br/noticias/inpi-assina-novo-pph-com-o-escritorio-americano
PPHs do promote work-sharing by, for example, enabling patent applicants ‘to request accelerated processing in the national phase, where patent examiners can make use of the work products from the other Office(s).’ 

In the meantime, the EU keeps negotiating with Brazil  as part of the negotiation with Mercosur (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil are members of this regional trade bloc). 
Brazil represents an important market to both, the US and Europe. For instance, by 2016, Brazil was placed as the largest economy from Latin America making 30.8% of the EU’s total trade with the region. Likewise, by 2018, Brazil was the US’s 9th largest good export market. 


Impacto económico de las marcas en América Latina


ASIPI e INTA acaban de publicar el informe “Las marcas en América Latina: Estudio de su impacto económico en 10 países de la región”. Este informe es una extensión del informe previamente publicado en el 2016.

En ese primer informe, se evaluó la contribución económica de las industrias intensivas en marcas en Chile, Colombia, Perú, Panamá, y México. En este nuevo informe, se actualizan los resultados de los citados países y se extendió el análisis a cinco nuevos países: Argentina, Brasil, Costa Rica, Guatemala y República Dominicana.

Los resultados elaborados muestran que las actividades intensivas en marcas tienen una participación significativa en términos de empleo, actividad económica y comercio exterior en las economías de los países latinoamericanos bajo estudio. En promedio, estas actividades aportan el 18% del empleo, el 22% del Producto Bruto Interno, el 31% de las exportaciones y el 34% de las importaciones.

Además, los sectores intensivos en marcas pagan salarios más altos que el resto de la economía, lo que denota su mayor productividad. La comparación internacional permitió mostrar que esos resultados son semejantes a los disponibles para los Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, tomando en cuenta las diferencias entre los patrones de producción y desarrollo de ambos grupos de países.

El estudio completo puede consultarse aquí (en español). El resumen ejecutivo se puede consultar en español, inglés y portugués. La información por país está disponible aquí.

Brazil: Madrid Protocol in practice

 
This week, the Brazilian Intellectual Property Office (INPI) published the first process for international applications of trade marks.

It is observed, that the exam integrates the new activities performed by INPI, including electronic filing and the transmission of the international application at the WIPO International Secretariat.
This publication remarks on the variations observed during the Madrid Protocol certification exam. Thus, the Industrial Property Magazine (RPI) in its ‘trade mark’ section includes now a chapter called: Protocol of Madrid.

INPI also reports that its national office has received a request for an international trade mark application. This has already been sent to WIPO through a very efficient and speedy process since it was done within twenty days, which is less than one-third of the deadline set for this step (two months is the set time).

The spet by step guidance published by INPI can be found here (in Portuguese)

More info here (in Portuguese)

Chile vs Peru: the battle over ‘Pisco’ continues

 
The Peruvian Ministry of External Relations has issued a Press Release stating that Peru will appeal to the ruling of the Court of First Instance of Thailand against the registration of a Chilean association that intends to use the term Pisco.
Press Release 010 - 19
Given the news reports that advance the ruling of the Court of First Instance on Intellectual Property and International Trade of Thailand, it should be stressed that despite the exclusive ownership of the Peruvian Denomination of Origin Pisco in Thailand, said Court ruled that in that country you can use "Pisco Chile".
Peru considers that this first decision of the Thailand Court does lead to consumer confusion in that country, since the Pisco Denomination of Origin is Peruvian and this is confirmed by the historical, geographical, cultural and scientific arguments that our country supports and defends in all the world’s court.
In that sense, the ruling in the first instance will be appealed immediately by Peru, in order to continue opposing any attempt to register because these are obvious errors of fact and law.
A Pisco sour for a sour battle
Years of international dispute have persisted over the origin of Pisco which both Chile and Peru have produced since colonial times. Both countries recognize it in their own jurisdiction as a Denomination of Origin. Additionally, back in 2018, Chile was open to accepting the name of Peruvian Pisco if Peru accepted the name of Chilean Pisco – a qui pro quo that did not go far since Peru did not accept such a proposal.

The case brought appears straightforward. If the Thailandese Registry of Industrial Property recognized Pisco as a Denomination of Origin (DO) produced in Peru, it does then prevents the registration of the name and any marketing of Pisco within the Thailand market if it has not complied with the Peruvian national regulation. Clearly, if Pisco was not made in Peru it cannot be called as such. Well, it is not that simple. In India, the dispute over the name went over 9 years (finally won by Peru) and this appears to be the case now in Thailand. The dispute is over a year on, so get ready for a long battle.

The whisky exchange webpage (where I get my inspiration from:) ) notes that ‘Pisco is a grape brandy produced in Chile and Peru’. In the EU (oh BREXIT is coming…who will register first in the UK, Chile or Peru) both, Chile and Peru, were granted geographical indication. Chile had an association agreement (2002) where recognition was given, and then Peru applied for the registration of Pisco as GI (granted in 2013).

Intangible Cultural Heritage, Intellectual Property and the Politics of Development

 
The Enredados network (policymakers, academics, and practitioners in the fields of intellectual property (IP) and intangible cultural heritage (ICH)) is pleased to invite you to a seminar and panel discussion.

Intangible Cultural Heritage, Intellectual Property and the Politics of Development
Christoph Antons (University of Newcastle, Australia)

In countries of the “developing world”, intangible cultural heritage is important for both national development policies and the rights claims of local and indigenous communities. All intangible cultural heritage is originally local, but national governments tend to shift it to the national level in the interest of nation building and income from tourism. Where communities have migrated or live across borders drawn by colonial powers, this has triggered disputes between neighbouring countries, whereby governments use different national histories and interpretations of an often mystical past to support heritage claims. Law as an instrument of the state has supported this centralisation of heritage claims and administration in the initial stages.

Image result for christoph antons
Antons' latest edited volume
Recently, however, communities have begun to articulate their own regional and local interests in heritage and are finding some support from constitutional reforms strengthening human rights and supporting decentralisation policies. Such decentralisation policies in turn were triggered by a paradigm change in development policies which aimed at a reduction of what was perceived as central government corruption and at a better sharing of resources with regions and provinces. The presentation will show the bargaining in this context about intangible cultural heritage (and related royalties) between communities, communities and governments and between the governments of neighbouring countries. In claiming what they perceive to be their rights, the parties involved use frequently changing combinations of legal principles with varying degrees of validity and legitimacy, drawn in particular from intellectual property law, international law, environmental law, constitutional law and customary law. The presentation will focus on examples from Southeast Asia, with brief comparative observations related to developments elsewhere.

Place: Coventry University London Campus
Middlesex Street, London, UK
Date: Monday 23 September 2019
Time: 5.30pm-8pm
*FREE ENTRANCE*


Enredados aims to encourage debate on the following issues:

  • the relationship between IP and ICH safeguarding;
  • the intersections between IP and ICH-related policy; and
  • how IP protection might be used as a tool for safeguarding ICH.


See you there.

POPULAR POSTS