Trade Mark: revocation is operative from the day of declaration – no retroactivity can be sought

Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has upheld a decision that determined the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) to proceed to the registration of the trade mark Lyon, required by the company 'Calçados Only Ltda.'

Background of the case
Back in 1995 the company named ‘Calçados Only’ applied for the registration of two trade marks containing the words ‘Lyon’, for shoes. INPI denied registration on the grounds that the mark was similar to ‘Piernas Lyon Dor’.
'Calçados Only' appealed to the decision on the grounds that the marks were capable of coexistence - it did not suceed. Moreover, parallel to this, the company brought another action i.e. revocation of the mark for non-use.

These cases were heard by the 5th Federal Court of the Judicial Section of Rio Grande do Sul and later on by the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region holding that INPI should proceed to registry the mark applied for by 'Calçados Only'.

INPI appealed to the decision on the grounds that company brought the action of revocation four months after the publication of filing their applications for registration and two months after the filing of the suit. There were not effects from such revocation of the earlier mark during the course of judicial proceedings, as this was only recognized after the closure of the administrative processes that denied the request of 'Calçados Only'.
 INPI based its case in the principle of no retroactivity. INPI argued that the subsequent declaration of revocation does not reopen the administrative proceedings or lead to the merits of the lawsuit, which was filed on the grounds that there would be no confusion between the marks. However, INPI affirms that such a declaration ie revocation to the oldest mark, opened the opportunity to submit a new application for registration.

At the STJ
In considering the appeal, the court cited a precedent from the Supreme Court's Second Section (EREsp 964 780), in which it was determined that "the revocation of a trade mark, due to lack of use, and/or enjoyment by the owner, has legal effect from its declaration (ex nunc) instead of retroactively (ex tunc) ".


Nice combo! but are they the same?

The STJ noted however that the case was based on the absence of confusion between the marks - and not in the revocation of the earlier mark. The Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region recognized the right of Calçados Only and acknowledged that the company had from the beginning the right to obtain the registration of its trade mark. Accordingly, the expressions Lyon and Lyon Dor (part of the name Piernas Lyon Dor) evoked different things; besides, the trade marks identified products aimed at different markets: shoes in first case and socks in the second [OK, they are not equal; but are they similar? I am afraid for a trade mark case, they are not similar because they are not really competing products. Moreover, we could see perhaps association in here, but this is not enough since there is the need of actual confusion].

Source STJ.

Chile: Seminario sobre caducidad por falta de uso de marcas

En  Chile está próximo a ser despachado el proyecto de ley por parte del Ejecutivo, que introduce modificaciones a la Ley 19.039 de Propiedad Industrial, una de las cuales es el establecimiento de la institución de la "caducidad de marcas".

Para analizar el proyecto de ley se ha organizado el seminario “Caducidad Marcaria” que busca principalmente que los asistentes conozcan el contenido de la reforma referida a la causal de extinción del derecho marcario por falta de uso del signo. El análisis será desde su procedencia constitucional, como desde una más perspectiva especifica, estudiando los cambios que se provocarán en la Ley 19.039, así como el conocer los aspectos probatorios involucrados en el no uso de la marca objeto de caducidad.

Además se analizará la normativa internacional que en su mayoría ya tiene incorporada esta institución, por lo que es muy importante que los asistentes tenga claridad respecto de cómo funciona esta causal en términos prácticos en otras legislaciones, con el fin de tener una noción más completa de la caducidad marcaria, en general, y los resultados que esta tiene en el derecho comparado.

El grupo de ponencias y expositores es el siguiente:

- “Efectos en la propiedad marcaria, constitucionalidad y derecho  de propiedad”.   Marcos Morales,  Vicepresidente de la Asociación Chilena de la Propiedad Intelectual ACHIPI y Director de Marcas y Patentes de Alessandri & Compañía Abogados.

- “Como opera la caducidad en derecho comparado”. Marino Porzio, Director de la Asociación Chilena de Propiedad Industrial (ACHIPI) desde 1993 hasta 2005 y presidente de la misma en el período 2003-2005.

- “Pérdida de  Distintividad; ¿Suficiente razón de caducidad?”. Rodrigo Cooper, profesor de Pre y Post grado de Propiedad Intelectual y Derecho Comercial de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Chile, 

y de Post Grado en LLM U. de Heidelberg.

- “Visión restrictiva del derecho de registro de una marca, visión competitiva”. Alfredo Montaner,  profesor de Derecho de  Propiedad Intelectual e Industrial de la Universidad Finis Terrae y del Diplomado de Propiedad Intelectual de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.

- “Institución de la caducidad marcaria en Mexico”. (Invitado Extranjero) Martín Michaus, abogado mexicano, ex Presidente de ASIPI.

Fecha: 8 de enero de 2013, 18.00 hrs.

Auditorio Arturo Alessandri, Facultad de Derecho Universidad de Chile
Organiza: INAPI y Centro de Estudio en Derecho Informático (CEDI) de la Universidad de Chile.

Ficha

Inscripciones, objetivos y programa

Fuente: Derechomarcario.cl