Thursday, 21 April 2016

Chile: Plataforma INAPI Conecta

En el auditórium de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Chile, se realizó el viernes 15 de abril, la presentación del nuevo sitio del Instituto Nacional de Propiedad Industrial, INAPI CONECTA, un punto de encuentro de nuevas tecnologías protegidas a través de la propiedad industrial.

INAPI Conecta tiene como principal objetivo servir como un espacio de encuentro, en el cual creadores e instituciones nacionales puedan dar a conocer innovaciones que cuentan con derechos de propiedad industrial a potenciales usuarios e interesados en explotarlas comercialmente. Este es un espacio público y gratuito que busca fomentar y acelerar la transferencia tecnológica y la comercialización de nuevas tecnologías.

Es así como los titulares de derechos de propiedad industrial pueden publicar sus patentes de invención, modelos de utilidad, diseños y dibujos industriales, en www.inapiconecta.cl. Además, los titulares pueden editar y modificar sus publicaciones para hacerlas más atractiva al público y de esa forma capturar mayor interés de un potencial interesado en explotarla comercialmente. 

INAPI Conecta pone a disposición de la comunidad nacional cientos de innovaciones con la disposición de aplicar nuevas tecnología en sus procesos industriales, comerciales o de investigación. Para facilitar este intercambio de información, INAPI Conecta posee guías y manuales para apoyar y fomentar la transferencia tecnológica.Existe disponible información de 48 tecnologías nacionales que pertenecen a las áreas de Biotecnología, Electrónica, Farmacéutica, Mecánica y Química, las cuales pertenecen a las Universidades de Concepción, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Universidad de Chile, Universidad de La Frontera, Universidad de Santiago, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso y la Corporación de Inventores de Chile.

Fuente: Constanza Zülch B. (Comunicaciones INAPI)



Tuesday, 19 April 2016

INDECOPI joins TMclass

As of 18 April 2016, the Peruvian National Institute for the Defense of Free Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) joins TMclass. Peru is the third Latin-American country included in the tool following Brazil and Mexico.

The addition of Peru brings the total number of national and regional IP Offices, including OAPI, WIPO and EUIPO, in the tool to 59.

TMclass now offers users the opportunity to search and translate terms to and from any of the 40 available languages.

This successful integration is the result of joint effort and cooperation within the framework of the International Cooperation Programme managed by EUIPO in collaboration with its international partners.

Source EUIPO.

UPDATE: As of 25 April 2016, the Colombia Superintendence of Industry and Comerce (SIC) has also joined TMclass. (EUIPO).

Sunday, 17 April 2016

Cocoa: more than a hot drink

The IPtango is always covering the matter of Geographical Indications (GI) and debates have been opened due to some queries: does it help the producers? Is it just economic exploitation? Does it deteriorate the product? One way or another, it is always good to know what is going on with a particular product.

The Peruvian Institute of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) has been providing activities to its citizens, be it training or awareness on IP (in general). And this cannot be a bad thing. This month for example I read about one of this activities which took place in the region of Amazons. INDECOPI’s Directorate of Distinctive Signs gave training to the Technical Committee of Cocoa, and to the Regional Government of Amazonas, on the various tools offered by IP for the protection of natural resources especially GI protection. Previously, the Technical Committee of Cocoa has showed interest of obtaining a GI for cocoa and thus, the INDECOPI’s office took this opportunity to provide them  with  some ideas on this regards.

Image result for cacao peru amazon tesco
 I can find this in my local supermarket,
but it is not from the Peruvian Amazon...or, is it?
INDECOPI reports that the training focused “on the benefits of having a designation of origin for cocoa.” It explained that a GI “allows a product to be differentiated from other similar offered in the market, because it has features that make it unique and attract consumer preference.” It also noted the “development phases for recognition of a designation of origin and the importance of promoting relations between people, territories and products for sustainable rural development.”

The training was not just focused on GI but also covered other IP tools such as collective marks, and trade marks. It highlighted IP as a good tool to be used by entrepreneurs and associations to protect their products and services. Apart from covering aspect of fair competition, INDECOPI also acknowledged how these tools can be used for the development of their region.

Aside from the point of IP I wonder: is it a good move to be looking at the exploitation of cacao  this time? Last year we heard the news that some companies were illegally deforesting the area (approx 7,000 hectares) and other companies were acquiring rural properties. Or, would this be actually the right moment for small enterprises to unify themselves and regulated what is to be regarded as proper cocoa from the Amazon region? some indication as the way it needs to be cultivated and to link it to natural factors but also to human ones as well...that would be a thought.

Source INDECOPI.

Monday, 11 April 2016

Check your rubber duck: is it original?

It is usual to open Latin American newspapers and read about protests. But what caught my eyes this time was to see a case of plagiarism in the middle of an actual ‘protest’.

Image result for dutch artist florentijn hofman rubber duckBrazil is in the middle of a mayhem for many reasons (zika, will Brazil be ready for the Olympics, and politicians involved in cases of corruption, to name some). This time the protest was related to the accusation of Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff. The protesters are using as a mascot a rubber duck. But this is not any rubber duck. This is said to be a ‘copy’ of the famous rubber duck made by Dutch artist Florentijn Hofman. Mr Hofman’s rubber duck has traveled the world since 2007. He has been spotted in countries such as Japan, Taiwan, New Zealand and even visited Brazil.

What is the copy, if any?
According to the news published by BBC, the case is about copyright infringement and an exactly copy of Mr Hofman’s design. Is it?

Here comes the fishy bit: the ‘original’ duck appeared as part of an exhibition in Brazil, and this version of Mr Hofman's duck was produced in a Sao Paulo factory. This same factory produced the new claimed copied duck. However, the owner of the factory, Mr Sousa, affirmed that they have produced both ducks: Mr Hofman’s version as required at the time for the exhibition, and the new duck, but assured that the design was not copied. He noted that he will “not put [his] reputation at risk" and he has “experience in this kind of jobs and this is a very simple design. Why wouldn't we spend four hours redesigning it?"

IPRs in Brazil:
Industrial Design is protected under Brazilian Law. As in many jurisdictions, one of the requirement is novelty and thus, will take into account all previous designs (state of the art) that have been made public in any place of the world and by any means before the filing date (priority date). As acknowledged by Mr Santos, the duck's design is common and thus, it would not have been protected under design.

Copyright also is available in Brazil which is a member of the Berne Convention and thus, not requirement of any formal registration obligation. Works are protected automatically from the moment of its creation. However, it is advisable to register the work as in many other Latin American jurisdictions do advise.

In this particular case the duck does not appear to be registered but it does not mean that it cannot be copyright protected - the technical drawings may be protected. While there is a main difference between the two ducks (the original has normal eyes and the claimed copied duck has crossed eyes) it does not matter for there to be an infringement since the test is about quality not quantity. So, ignoring the eyes, is the said copied work reproducing the whole or a substantial part of the protected work?

Image result for dutch artist florentijn hofman rubber duck
A case of spot the difference?
Section 29 of Brazilian Law No. 9610/98 sets a list of actions which constitute copyright infringement and relevant to this duck we could mention: complete or partial reproduction of the works or, plagiarism. The causal link is indeed of no problem since Mr Sosa had direct access to the technical drawings - he prepared Mr Hofman’s version. On the other side of the coin, defences are also available to this ‘copy’ duck such as the drawings has no originality and thus, not protected and/or the copy duck is sufficiently different from the copyrighted work.

Image result for face duck
Talking about duck...well said Mr.
The question then is based on: does the duck’s technical drawings constitute ‘artistic work’ worth of protection? Copyright does not require for the work to be unique or inventive, the Brazil requirement is that actually the work needs to be fixed and that it has to be a creation of the mind. Can we said that this drawing contains creativeness?

In the meantime, ducks are still used in protests against the government.