IPTango: Costa Rica

Showing posts with label Costa Rica. Show all posts

Monday, 5 July 2021

The Latin American Network of IP and Gender has been created

IPTango July 05, 2021 No comments:

On 28 June 2021, it was announced the creation of the Latin American Network of Intellectual Property and Gender. For such purpose, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between INAPI (Chile), INDECOPI (Peru), RN (Costa Rica), SIC (Colombia) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO, as an honorary member).

The Network was conceived as a forum “to develop activities and promote the intellectual property at the regional level, with a gender perspective”.

The Latin American Network of Intellectual Property and Gender will facilitate the exchange of good practices, stats, and experiences between the Offices to close the gender gap and empower women in the region concerning innovation and entrepreneurship.

During the virtual signing ceremony of the MoU, the founding members expressed the desire that the entire region joins the Network to make a more significant impact.

The Network’s creation was discussed during the “III Sub-regional Meeting on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Gender Equality” in 2019. Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay participated in such a meeting.

Throughout 2020, the IP Offices of Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Peru held meetings with WIPO to follow up on the creation of the Network.

Sources: INAPI (Chile), INDECOPI (Peru) and RN (Costa Rica) websites.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay.

Impacto económico de las marcas en América Latina

Gilberto Macias (@gmaciasb) November 06, 2019 No comments:

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.

Free trade mark databases – the presence of Latin American countries

Patricia Covarrubia November 06, 2018 No comments:

Have you heard of TMview? This is a common online trade mark information platform. The platform, a free of charge tool, makes trade mark data (registration and application) widely available and easily accessible to all interested parties. The platform is used in the EU and in the ASEAN region.

Talking about views..this is my view!
from the 19th floor of the Korean
Intellectual Property Office (KIPO)

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the EU administers the platform. It has operated since April 2010 and contains information from all of the EU national IP offices, the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and a number of international partner offices outside the EU.

In Latin America, Mexico was the first country to participate, followed by Brazil, Colombia and in October 2017, Peru. These national IPOs made its trade mark data available to the TMview search tool.

Aside from TMview, there is also DesignView which operates as TMview, i.e., a platform that share data for industrial designs (application and registration) – Peru participates in this platform.

The new participant is Costa Rica, joining both the TMview and DesignView and so, it has now made available its trade mark (278,627 of them) and industrial design (1,700) data available to the EUIPO search tools. The number of trade marks in TMview is close to reach 50 millions (as of 06 November 2018).

Source EUIPO.

'it's a new day it's a new life' and I am feeling PROSUR

Patricia Covarrubia January 10, 2017 No comments:

December 2016 saw the last weeks of the year with the eagerness of some Latin American countries to start cooperating more. Therefore, future plans were discussed by PROSUR Directorship Committee.

Back in 2009, WIPO received a letter signed by nine Latin American countries which have agreed on a regional project “to develop a common platform that allows the integration, exchange of information and system compatibility for the nine participating countries.” – known as PROSUR due to involve South (SUR) American countries.

Besides the plans for the new year ahead, the extension of funding was also covered (by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)). The Latin American countries which are part of the PROSUR regional cooperation system of IP are: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname and Uruguay, WIPO also participated. From Central America, Costa Rica also joined the group and there are talks for expansion of PROSUR. That said, PROSUR members “announced the entry of the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua from 2017.” [will this also see the change of the name to PROSURCENTRAL?]

The patent national offices of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay had already started a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program.

Source INPI.

Latin American Index of Legislative Transparency – is it relevant for IP?

Patricia Covarrubia December 08, 2016 No comments:

This week the Latin American Index of Legislative Transparency was released. This index “aims to systematise and analyse relevant information about the Legislative Powers”. It promotes “transparency, access to information and accountability in the congresses of the Latin American region.”

The data compares the Congresses or Parliaments of Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, establishing therefore a “minimum standard of transparency in the political, administrative and proper work” of these institutions. The index takes the following data: Normative; Legislative work; Budget; and Administrative Management and Citizen Participation and Attention.

Is this relevant to IP and if so how?
IP is regulated by law, therefore we need to look at whether Latin American countries have a satisfactory legislative transparency.
For starts, will an invention/creation be protected as a matter of fact? And if so, do people know what to do to protect their work, where to go? I think that you got the idea by now.

With confidence we can say that in general Latin American legislation fulfil international standards. The majority of them have adapted their national legislation in accordance with TRIPS (WTO) and many other international agreements administered by WIPO. Other countries have taken a step further, for instance there are regional blocs which have harmonised IP law to high standards (e.g. CAN Decision 486) while others even have stricter rules after signing a bilateral agreement.

Transparent OR invisible?
What is worst in the legislative arena?

However, legislation alone does not measure really the transparency or access to information that citizens do have. It is exactly the same as to say that legislation alone does not tell you if there is actually protection. There is a need to do a full study not merely based on laws as written but rather on the ‘before’, in 'between' and ‘after’ the law.

Recently I noted something similar but in regards to IP protection (here) acknowledging that there was the need to observe the World Bank data which provides a variety of measures for a country. The studied that I conducted reflected the very poor state of the selected countries’ regimes (with the exception of Chile) based on the indicators of: Control of Corruption; Government Effectiveness; Regulatory Quality; and Rule of Law.

Having said that, it comes as no surprise to see Chile in second place at the Latin American Index. Mr Del Favero, legislative coordinator at the Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente, a representative of the Latin American Transparency Legislative Network, stressed the rationale and outcome of the index. It observed that it allows to compare “how the policies of transparency and participation in the Congresses of the continent are developed, with the idea of promoting its consolidation and, thus, democracy.” However, Mr Del Favero also noted that there were certain issues that can make the Chilean level index to improve - for instance, in relation to “generating independent control bodies within the Congress that can watch how the legislative activity is developed”.

The index reveals a regional average of 50% and Chile obtained 64% taking Costa Rica to the first place with an index of 72%.

I finish then with a speech given by Michelle K. Lee , the 2014 Deputy Director Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO: “transparency in an open, democratic, and innovation-oriented society is a good thing.”

Source Camara de Diputados de Chile.
The full index can be found here.

Economic growth of a country: technology transfer

Patricia Covarrubia October 27, 2016 No comments:

From Stephany Soto, Clarke Modet & Co we hear of a Plan for Technology Transfer (TT)in Peru. The plan is taken effect from 2016 to 2021 and the aim is to promote technological development in the country. This plan is to contribute to the existing one called ‘National Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation for Competitiveness and Human Development (PNCTI 2006-2021)’.

Webinar available at Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk

Technology progress is linked to the economic growth and high income in countries and this plan involves both the private and economic sector. Universities will play a crucial role since they encompass ‘Research’. Research usually leads to development of new products and processes which are followed by commercialisation - providing economic returns. Miss Soto says “The plan was created with the aim of promoting the development and transfer of technological innovations in companies raising the competitiveness and productivity, added value with criterion of economic and environmental sustainability”.

In this line, the State intention is to organise “technology meetings, technology fairs and other events to create networking among entrepreneurs and researchers in order to make easier the interaction and promote collaborative projects.” This will hand in hand with imparting training in intellectual property (IP).

Why IP should matter for TT?
Technology is valuable, provoking copies or imitations. If technology is copied and/or imitated it reduces the possible profits of the inventor: and who would like to invent without rewards where time and money have been spent and you will not have recognition?

What IP does it’s to encourage innovation by (the government) granting successful inventors a temporal monopoly over the invention.

In Peru if companies have a TT agreement/contract, such license must be in writing and registered before the INDECOPI to be enforceable before 3rd parties. And it is good to know that Peru is member of the PCT.

In closing I would like to see more policies in TT and of course giving incentive to this matter. For example in Costa Rica there is a Law (No. 20.241) on R&D which provides incentives: 35 % tax credit on the amount invested in R&D, when duly certified by the National Production Development Corporation; remaining 65 % can be considered as ‘expenses’.

A network to attend: calling SMEs

Patricia Covarrubia August 19, 2016 No comments:

No many times we receive news from Costa Rica and every time I see something in this country I get very excited [perhaps it’s because of its richness in fauna and flora: I definitely would like to visit the sloth sanctuary and indulge myself with their famous pineapples).

Sloths do tango.

An invitation was in my inbox from ELAN (European and Latin America Technology based Business Network) which I have the fortune to work with early in the year. For the 19th to the 21st September 2016 ELAN will be in San Jose, Costa Rica. The workshop is a great opportunity for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to “create strong networks and durable relationships and business opportunities characterized by being technology and innovation related.” The flyer notes that “ICT is one of the most dynamic technological areas in Costa Rica. It includes more than 900 companies, 95% of which are SMEs, becoming an interesting sector which important challenges related to international collaboration and partnership.”

In regards to intellectual property, the Latin American IPR SME Helpdesk will be present in the event. Day 2 will see Silvia Salazar speaking on how to manage intellectual property in the ICT sector focusing on patents in Central America. The event is free of charge.

More information here.

China and the Latin American Market

Patricia Covarrubia July 13, 2015 No comments:

Many in the IP-addicted community, and several others looking East most of the time have been and are used to see China and IP as a difficult marriage in a game of endless catch-up: domestic regulations striving to meet international standards, drafting and redrafting laws and regulations, complying with Western standards and accumulating enormous backlogs, breaking IP filing records, leading in counterfeiting and piracy world records, showing impressive recovery and determination, and occasionally falling behind again.

Since the “reform and opening up” policy initiated by the visionary Deng Xiaoping of 1978, the patent and the trademark laws alone went through a total eight amendments while the Central Government started including IP in every agenda of nearly every quinquennial plan until when in 2008 the most ambitious, aggressive and long reaching IP plan was enacted and pointed at reaching unprecedented goals by 2020. Targets were and remain enforcement, standards, domestic innovation, government procurement and more.

The same people, whom, as me, have acknowledged the heroic and speedily race of the dragon in building muscle, recently discovered a more subtle tone to the roar: the role of China in international, multi- and bilateral negotiations on IPRs. The undisputed role as factory of the World for years, as benchmark, as dealmaker- and breaker, has now become a rather vocal presence also in negotiations on IP protection and its enforcement, and in trade agreements.

China’s pragmatic approach to the international chessboard of trade has made another move as it became clear how the country would steer into the direction of securing resources and economic alliances, through regional trade and formalizing them in agreements (RTAs). China started the process in 2003 when it signed the CEPA (Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) with Hong Kong and carried on in negotiating more with Iceland, Pakistan, India, Macau, New Zealand, ASEAN, Australia and Chile. The main feature of these agreements indicates how China has started to drift away from being just an FTA-standard setting contributor with its vast weight, and rather becoming a pioneer for trade integration.

One would suppose that the recent China-Switzerland FTA could become a model for how much importance China poses to questions of IP protection, enhancement and opportunity in trade agreements. The reality seems to be that China remains a very selective and picky player and adopts a criteria based on the strengths of the contracting party. Agreements with countries such as Pakistan, Singapore, Macau, Iceland do not actually spell out well defined IP provisions or programs or include none at all. In RTAs with three countries of the Americas, such as Chile, Costa Rica and Peru, the documentation unveils only a mild approach on IP interaction with China, relegating IP matters to just a few articles and preferring more broad assumptions such as social and economic welfare enhancement and so on. With Chile in particular, the parties have set out articles regarding Geographical Indications (Art. 10); encouraged research in science and technology (Art. 106.1) and, just shortly after provisions on Cultural Cooperation, an article denoting a generic tone of cooperation between the countries (Art. 111) which makes it ever more evident that for these countries it is not yet time to expect a far reaching an agreement as the one between China and Switzerland which regulates IP, to a large extent covering copyrights, trademarks, patents, and plant varieties.

Probably the most relevant provision and its Annex, for IP related issues in the agreement with Chile is to be found under Geographical Indications. The products at stake are less numerous than what was hoped for, where the GIs covered are only a wine from Shaoxing the Anxi Tieguan Yin tea, and pisco from Chile.

China imports about 23% of all Chilean yearly trade and is the second largest exporter to Chile, after the U.S., counting for 18% of overall Chilean imports by country. Given the strong impetus of Chilean economy and foreign direct investment into China, it is likely that not too long down the road from now Chile may play even a more crucial role for China in South America, hence gaining more credit for farther reaching agreements in the area of IP with China.

Post written by Ricardo Benussi (Business Advisory Associate --Italian Desk -- Dezan Shira & Associates)

Costa Rica: retrograde reform for representation?

Jeremy December 26, 2014 No comments:

IP Tango learns of some interesting developments in Costa Rica, relating to the status there of the "attorney-of-fact". According to the information received:

Under the Costa Rican legislation, it is necessary to submit a power of attorney when appearing as a representative of a company or an individual before the Trademark Office and Patent Office. This document requires very simple formalities, such as being acknowledged by a notary public, and does not necessitate any sort of legalisation. In the absence of this requisite at the time of filing, the local rules allowed representatives to file applications and related actions as attorneys-in-fact, provided that the power of attorney was filed within the following three months for international companies, and within a month for domestic entities.

However, Official Guideline DRPI-0004-2014 (dated October 23 2014, published in the Official Gazette on November 10) of the Industrial Property Registry established new requirements for the filing of applications and related actions as attorneys-in-fact.

Specifically, the use of this mechanism is subject to the presentation of a certificate of good standing of the company at issue, or of a life certificate or proper identification in the case of individuals. In both cases, the documents must be legalised when they have been issued abroad. Paradoxically, although powers of attorney do not currently require legalisation, the Industrial Property Registry conditioned the use of this mechanism on the presentation of the documents described above, as provided in the local Civil Procedure Code. If the requested documents are not submitted at the time of filing or after the Trademark Office or Patent Office has issued an office action, the application or related action will be archived and it will not be possible to reactivate it [One might ask who actually benefits from this? What will it do to facilitate business and commerce, to encourage greater use of the IP system or to enable it to run more efficiently?]. This is quite worrying, since applications claiming priority would be at risk if the additional documentation is not filed on time. ...

This development is predicted to cause problems and is seen as a retrograde step in the smooth operation of the country's IP system.

Source: "Industrial Property Registry sets new rules for attorneys-in-fact" by Esteban Monge (Zürcher Lawyers, San Jose), from World Trademark Review, 14 December 2014

Pisco: ensuring its authenticity

Patricia Covarrubia July 04, 2014 No comments:

The Peruvian Institute for the Defence of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) informs the seized of more than 7000 bottles filled with liquor that exhibited the denomination of origin (DO) ‘Pisco’ without having such authorization.INDECOPI can prosecute cases of DO misuse with fines.

Through the Directorate of Distinctive Signs and the Supervision and Auditing Administrative office, the goods were seized at a customs warehouse in a Peruvian Port Terminal as part of a case against the manufacturer of the product which was intended for exports.

Back in 2011 INDECOPI awarded to the National Association of Producers of Pisco, the authorization to operate as the Regulator of the said DO. The Regulatory Council guides, monitors and control the production and processing of Pisco. Moreover, if a manufacturer wants to use a DO, it needs to be authorized by the Directorate of Distinctive Signs at INDECOPI.

Some facts about Pisco as a DO:

• Chile and Peru has disputed the DO Pisco for many years --one of the main differences between the spirit is the alcohol content.
• In 2013, after more than a decade of litigation, El Salvador (Supreme Court) ruled in Peru’s favour agains Chile in the proceedings regarding the legitimate use of pisco as a DO. The judgment annulled the 2005 decision of a lower court which recognized Pisco as a DO originating from Chile.
• In 2009, Malasia recognized Pisco as a DO from Peru.
• Trade agreement between Chile and Nicaragua recognized Pisco as a DO from Chile.
• Trade agreement between Peru and Costa Rica recognized Pisco as a DO from Peru.
• Trade Agreement between Peru and the EU recognized Pisco as a DO from Peru.
• In 2013, the EU registered Pisco as a DO from Peru. However, there is a note which acknowledged a previous (2002)Trade Agreement between Chile and the EU in which Pisco was recognized as a DO from Chile! Therefore, the note clarifies that the protection granted to "Pisco" as a DO to Peru does not hinder the use of that name for products originating in Chile.