Upcoming events on this week and more!

Upcoming events on this week and more!

Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo   August 12, 2020   No comments:

WHAT’S GOING ON THIS WEEK? 

On 12 August 2020, the National Institute of Copyright (INDAUTOR) will hold the webinar Indigenous Communities and Copyright (in Spanish). The event will take place in light of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (celebrated on 9 August). The speakers are Hugo Contreras Lamadrid (INDAUTOR), Juan Miguel Ruiz Pérez (INDAUTOR) and Nancy Clara Vásquez García (Äats hilando caminos). Live stream here and here.

The webinar Protecting Jewelry Designs through Intellectual Property (in Portuguese) will take place also on 12 August 2020. The event is organized by the Brazilian Intellectual Property Association (ABPI) and OAB Rio de Janeiro (the Order of Attorneys of Brazil). The speakers are Kelly Amorim and Claudio Magalhães. Andreia de Andrade Gomes and Isis Moret Valaziane will moderate the session. 

On 12 and 13 August 2020, the webinar Intellectual Property as a tool for promoting the national identity of countries (in Spanish) will be streamed on YouTube. The event is organized by the Latin American School of Intellectual Property (ELAPI). Some speakers are Ronald Gastello (INDECOPI), Ray Meloni (INDECOPI), María José Lamus (SIC Colombia), José Andrés Tinajero (SENADI Ecuador), Silvana Sánchez (SENAPI Bolivia), and Luis José Diez Canseco Núñez (Technological University of Peru). The program is available here. 

On 13 August 2020, the Centre for Constitutional Studies of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico (SCJN) is organizing the International Seminar on Compensation for Damages: Beyond the causal link. The speaker is Professor Sandy Steel (Oxford University). Register here. 

On 14 August 2020, the webinar Analysis of the amendments to the Mexican Copyright Law. Technological Protection Measures: Digital Padlocks? (in Spanish) will be held. The Specialized Centre for Intellectual Property (CECPI) organizes the event. The speaker is Professor Eduardo de la Parra Trujillo. 

ABPI: PATENT OF THE YEAR AWARD 

The Brazilian Intellectual Property Association (ABPI) is accepting submissions for the Patent of the Year Award. The competition is endorsed by the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI Brazil). 

The deadline for this competition is 4 September 2020. The Judging Committee will evaluate the inventions "related to the prevention or treatment of COVID-19" taking into account the potential for generating social and economic benefits, the environmental impact, the internationalization of protection, and the participation of Brazilian inventors.

The award will be granted during the 40th ABPI International Congress on Intellectual Property, which will be held online from 19 to 22 October 2020. The prize is a one-year membership of ABPI. More information here and here. 

PAST EVENTS 

Did you miss some events held the last week? The following are still available on-demand: 

• 5 August. Webinar: Impact of Pandemic on IP Law Firms in Latin America (in Portuguese and Spanish), organized the Brazilian Association of Industrial Property Agents (ABAPI) and the Inter-American Association of Intellectual Property (ASIPI). Speakers: Carlos Olarte (Colombia), Enrique Díaz (Mexico), José Maria Vicetto Júnior (Argentina) and Marcelo Correa (Chile). Moderators: Andréa Possinhas and Rosane Tavares. 
• 6 August. Webinar: Intellectual Property and Hackathons: Trademark Registration (in Portuguese), organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Brazilian Intellectual Property Association (ABPI). Opening speakers: Tatiana Campello (ABPI), Isabella Pimentel (WIPO) and Paulo Varella Lisboa (NEXT, ICICT). Panellists: Maria Luiza Mondelli (second group, general category), Renata Frota (third group, general category), and Gabriela Toledo. Moderator: Patrícia Coimbra. 

If you have a craving for more, review the full list of events here! 

Image of Karolina Grabowska on Pixabay. 

Read More

Panama: damages for trade mark opposition made in bad faith

Panama: damages for trade mark opposition made in bad faith

Jeremy   September 11, 2014   1 comment:

In June 2014 the Civil Chamber of Panama's Supreme Court of Justice, in a majority decision, ordered Bridgestone Corporation and Bridgestone Licensing Services Inc to pay Muresa and Tire Group of Factories Ltd Inc damages of $5 million plus  $431,000 in costs and court expenses following a finding that the filing by Bridgestone of a trade mark opposition was made in bad faith, leading to the cessation of the commercialisation of products covered by the RIVERSTONE trade mark.

The decision was supported by the filing of evidence to the effect that Muresa had suffered commercial damage as it had to use other marks, including marks of inferior quality, in order to supply market demand.

This blogger is not familiar with any other instances of damages being filed for wrongful opposition and wonders if readers can enlighten him: is this something that extends beyond Panama?

Source: "Bridgestone ordered to pay $5 million in damages in RIVERSTONE case", by Marissa Lasso De La Vega (Alfaro Ferrer & Ramirez, Panama), published in the World Trademark Review. 

Read More

Previous material control on the internet would breach confidentiality

Previous material control on the internet would breach confidentiality

Patricia Covarrubia   September 15, 2011   No comments:

The Brazilian Third Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has held that Services Providers are not required to apply any earlier control on material posted on the Internet, however they need to keep track and remove offensive content. This decision denied a claim for compensation against Google Brazil Internet Ltda and its site Orkut (social networking site) .

Background of the case
An Orkut’s user claimed that he was offended by the content published on this site. The first Instance court determined the removal of the offensive material (a photo album and its content) and payment of R$ 8,300 for moral damages. Google appealed and the Court dismissed it believing that the site would have developed tools to restrain abuses and to identify the user responsible for the offenses.

The case reached the STJ: Google claimed that the Court sentence was extra petita (judge holding something other than what was the requested action), since at no time the claimant asked for information about the user responsible for the said offences. It also argued that not having participated in the creation of Orkut’s offensive material it could not be held liable and be required to indemnify the victim -- under articles 182 and 927 of the Civil Code, the perpetrator of the offense is the only one required to compensate.

The rapporteur of the process, minister Nancy Andrighi, held that Google's liability should be restricted to the nature of the activity developed by it. To this effect, the services offered by the company via Orkut include confidentiality, security and inviolability of customers’ data. Therefore, "regarding the supervision of the information posted by users, it is not an inherent activity of the service, so it cannot be considered to be defective, in accordance with Article 14 of the CDC". Interestingly, the minister argued that if previous control (in this case by Google) of material is required, then it would be a breach of confidentiality of communications prohibited by Article 5, section XII of the Federal Constitution. Moreover, she claimed that early verification of the content would eliminate one of the biggest attractions of the Internet, which is the transmission of data in real time.

However, the minister argued that there is still responsibility for traffic information saying that "there is however the duty, once aware of the existence of a message which is offensive, to withdraw it immediately from the air". To this effect she noted that the company took the offensive material from the air as soon it was informed of the situation. In addition, Google maintains a channel for people, or non users who have had their identities stolen on Orkut, to request the removal of the account and report other abuses. Concluding, the minister removed Google’s obligation to indemnify.

The case is Process No REsp 1186616

Read More

IPRs infringement and compensation damages: are they hand in hand?

IPRs infringement and compensation damages: are they hand in hand?

Patricia Covarrubia   September 06, 2011   No comments:

The world well-known Konica Minolta - manufacturer of photocopies machines, filed a lawsuit for damages against Ativa. The defendant was importing and selling Minolta photocopies machines acquired from third parties, which were rebuilt - replacing defective parts. The reconstruction of the equipment, however, would be illegal because it was not authorized by the original company. Because of this, Minolta accused Ativa of product counterfeiting and unfair competition. The Trial Court held that there was an illegal practice.

While Ativa appealed before the Tribunal de Justiça do Amazonas (TJAM) the case became quite puzzling since the court denied compensation for lost profits and damages because the extent of damage - even if they exist, was not proved.

Both Ativa and Minolta appealed to the court. The first argued that there was not counterfeit, because the products were purchased from an authorized dealer, and that the original company cannot prevent the free movement of products on the market (Article 132, section III, Law 9.279/96 (the Industrial Property Law)). On the other hand, Minolta argued that the damage suffered was recognized by the state court.

At the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) the rapporteur of the case, Minister Luis Felipe Solomon explains that “ industrial property protection is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution”, and it was proven that Ativa violated this fundamental right (an IPR infringement). This is so, because Ativa imported used and reconditioned photocopiers and sold them using the Minolta trade mark, without control or warranty of the original trade mark owner.

The doctrine calls it trade mark dilution by obfuscation. Dilution is an abuse to the integrity of a distinctive sign (in this case, Minolta trade mark), which diminish the power of sale of that mark. One type of dilution - committed in this case - is obfuscation: loss of distinctive strength of a trade mark. According to the minister this happens when a sign is used to identify products from various sources. He continues to explain that if one can recondition products without submitting to the control and standards adopted by the trade mark holder it would caused confusion to consumers because they do expect certain standard of quality and reliability which is associated to the sign. [I believe we all agree with that, but was not the retailer authorised?]. Yet to show injury is no easy task, since damage is not always revealed in profits, "What is common sense is that to realise that the trade mark owner would have even greater profits if the infringement did not occur."

Finally the minister claimed that the state court has recognized the damage by “indicating some illegal conduct committed by the defendant” which makes clear “the obligation to indemnify." In other words, although there is no exact measurement of the damage, compensation can be upheld if the illegal practice has been recognized.

Source STJ.
Process No REsp 1207952.

Read More

Google is an uncontrollable monster!

Google is an uncontrollable monster!

Patricia Covarrubia   August 17, 2011   No comments:

Brazil, 15 August, Google Brazil Internet Ltda. brought an appeal to the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) for having been obliged by a lower court to remove offensive content placed in Orkut - a social network and discussion site operated by Google.

The party affected, a health specialist in Rio Grande do Sul, claimed the removal of all offensive messages and images. It is claimed that the doctor suffered a wave of attacks on the network and he tried to use an existing tool on the site to prevent the transmission of the defamatory messages. The tool, however, did not allow the exclusion of all messages against him. He asked also for compensation for moral and material damage.

Google however claimed that it would be impossible to scan the network for defamatory content against the party affected and thus, claimed that the doctor should have provided the email address of the attackers and indicate the measures to be censored.

The company also argued that if they proceed to remove the content, this would violate the freedom of expression. Moreover, it mentions that there is no legislation requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to exert control of content placed on the Internet.

STJ
The Fourth Class of the Supreme Court did not consider the liability of the ISP. It only found that Google is obliged to delete the defamatory content of the pages struck against the victim, even without the provision of accurate email addresses from him.

The rapporteur, Luis Felipe Minister Solomon, considered that the lack of technical tools to correct problems does not exempt the company to seek solutions. "If Google has created an uncontrollable monster, it is only to be charged for any consequences generated by the lack of control users have of its social network," he said. Offensive messages could be captured by programming mechanisms or by a specialized staff, he added.

Yet, the responsibility is not automatic and does not occur at the time the message is posted on the network. The civil liability depends on the conduct, taking into consideration its responsibility and the damage experienced by others.

Process: REsp 1175675

Read More

Rio 2007: can moral damage be presumed or must it be proved?

Rio 2007: can moral damage be presumed or must it be proved?

Jeremy   June 16, 2010   No comments:

Although soccer World Cup ambush marketing is currently getting plenty of publicity, it is the Rio Pan American Games in 2007 which is the focal point of a recent piece of Brazilian litigation -- the Court of Appeals for the State of Rio de Janeiro has upheld a damages award in a trade mark infringement action brought by the Rio Pan American Games Organizing Committee against a taxi cooperative which used the RIO 2007 word and design trade mark without authorization.

According to the trial court, the cooperative infringed. The court awarded damages based on the royalty the cooperative would have paid, had it been a licensee of the Committee. The Committee also sought “moral damages” (compensation for harm to the Committee’s reputation) and it was against that court's refusal to award damages under this head of claim that the appeal was lodged.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeals said there was no proof of reputational harm. This decision is said to be at odds with recent decisions of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice. According to that court, specific proof of reputational harm is not required in the case of trade mark infringement because damage to reputation may be presumed.

Source: INTA Bulletin, vol.65, no.11

Read More