Checking the Peruvian newspaper La Republica, I encountered with the
recent registration (No 618011-2015) of the word mark ‘Guti’ and its respective logo in Class 10
of the Nice classification system (including in particular: hygienic rubber
articles). The registration refers to condoms under the sub-title product. Now
so far so good….but wait…who is Guti? What is the logo?
| INDECOPI |
Guty Carrera is a famous Peruvian model who has participated
in modelling for underwear labels; he also has participated in reality tv
shows, and even took part in a campaign celebrating the International Condom
Day aiming to encourage the responsible use of condoms reducing sexually
transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancies. He is renowned as a love rat and his lovers claim that he is ‘gifted’, alluding to his manhood. Then, appreciating
Guty’s story we acknowledge the clever use of the ‘t’ in the logo.
The analysis comes towards Art 135 of Decision 486 CAN
referring to signs that are not capable of been registered. In this case Art 135(p)
refers to signs that are contrary to public order and morality. Is the logo
against morals? This simple question open a Pandora box: who can actually determine
if a sign breaches the public order and morality clause? Should it be a
centralized definition of what is to be caught under this bar? In reality we
open the debate: what is considered to
be profane or vulgar? The beauty of this blog is that we come from different
backgrounds, religion, sexual orientations, ages (and eras) and what can be
moral to me, it may be vulgar to you (or vice versa).
The logo
Is the logo vulgar? Offensive? Objectionable? One need to
analyse who will be expose to the logo. While
the logo may contain quite a ‘graphic’ representation, it may be approved (as
it was). Q&A go in the line that children and elderly are not the target
market; they are not sold in toys shops; tv advertisements would be limited. A
mere offence to a section of the public cannot be enough to bar a sign from
registration. It has to be something that causes outrage, or it is considered
by the society that it is against social values. In this case, the logo has
sexual implications but it works for the goods applied for. A different story
would be if the logo is for clothing, don’t you agree?
