
Monday, 14 June 2021

Tuesday, 12 January 2021

Chile and the Madrid Protocol: are we close yet?
In December 2020, the draft Agreement to approve the Madrid Protocol was entered into the first Chilean Constitutional procedure. The discussion of the draft began on December 15, 2020 at the Foreign Relations Committee of the Chamber of Deputies.
Tuesday, 13 October 2020

Brazil: First Anniversary of the Madrid Protocol
The Madrid Protocol has been running for over 30 years (June, 1989). With it, the flexibility to the Madrid System has seen an increased number in international trade mark registrations. After three decades, the system expanded to cover Latin America and the Caribbean (Antigua and Barbuda, Brazil, Cuba, and Mexico).
In 2019, WIPO reports that there has been over 60,000 international applications marking a 10th year of uninterrupted growth. While the main driver of the overall rise comes from the US (37%), followed by Germany and France; tailed by Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Italy, Australia, and Turkey.
Brazil, celebrating its 1st anniversary (a member
since 2nd Oct 2019) has received 109 international applications from national
users. This has also facilitated the use of the Madrid system by trade marks holders
located in other countries and thus, Brazil hit the 7,896 number from
international users indicating Brazil as their designated country (INPI
here).
To read the full data, click here.
Tuesday, 9 April 2019

Brasil más cerca de Madrid
Friday, 1 June 2018

Brazil and the Madrid Protocol: are they nearly there?
Therefore, building upon this, on May 10, 2018 the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’s officials met at the headquarters of the INPI in Rio de Janeiro. At this stage, the WIPO exposed its experience in the management of this international trade mark registration system. INPI’s president noted the ‘efforts of the INPI team to reduce the time of examination of trade mark applications, in order to make possible the adhesion to the Agreement.’ The WIPO counterparts highlighted that Brazil is ‘well-structured to meet the requirements to participate in the Protocol, which will open up opportunities for domestic companies interested in the world market.’ On the same date, there was also a technical meeting with the INPI Trademark Board team, focusing on practical issues regarding the functioning of the system.
Additionally, on May 20, 2018, the General Coordinator of the Directorate of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (DIRMA), represented INPI at the "Meeting of Users of the Madrid System", organized by the WIPO in Seattle, United States. The INPI reported that the coordinator-general was as well to participate in the ‘IP Office Workshop’, which was organized by the Canadian, Hungarian and Mexico IPOs. It is also reported that one of the theme to be examined is ‘the registration of trade marks as part of an innovation strategy’.
Source the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) here and here.
Friday, 10 November 2017

Brazil: going to Madrid?
![]() |
| Welcome Madrid System! |
At the moment the registration of a trade mark takes 25 months if unopposed but by 2018 such period will be shortened by the required 18 months. It is also said that by 2019, INPI might be starting to receive international orders via the Madrid System.
WIPO’s director and the regional director of the WIPO Office in Brazil and the INPI’s president spoke about the importance of the Madrid System enhancing the significance of the Madrid Protocol for Brazilian companies. INPI’s president also noticed the need for a better IT infrastructure and the necessity to hire new trade marks examiners.
Source INPI.
Tuesday, 16 August 2016
Mexico: time to oppose to trade mark registration
Mexico is one of the few countries which does not provide for trade mark opposition proceedings. The Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial (IMPI) is the administrative authority legally authorized to conduct ex officio examinations of trade mark applications on absolute and relative grounds. As noted in the World Trademark Review, Mexico is not bound to introduce opposition proceedings as a result of its accession to the Madrid System, but this amendment would make the trade mark system more efficient. Colombia was the first Latin America emerging country to ratify the Protocol on the Madrid Agreement (2012), then Mexico (2013). Cuba signed in 1995.
On 23 August José Miguel Mena López, Legal Services Manager at Clarke, Modet & Cº Mexico will be holding a Webinar on the implementation of the opposition system in Mexico. Details of the Webinar and how to registry can be found here.
Friday, 20 November 2015
Trans-Pacific Partnership - Intellectual Property: How might it affect European SMEs doing business abroad?
The Trans-Pacific Partnership has recently been ratified. It is an international treaty that sets a series of terms aimed at improving the commercial relationships among the Signatory Parties.
Who are the members?
The members who ratified the TPP last October were: United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, Brunei, Canada, Vietnam and Malaysia.
What about China?
Other countries such as China or Colombia chose not to enter the agreement at this time, however it does not preclude them from joining it in the near future.
What are the main concerns?
The New Zealand Government was the first to publish a version of the Treaty, which is still under revision and may be subject to changes. Nevertheless the list of priority issues – which are not likely to change – are:
National Treatment and Market Access for Goods
Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures
Textiles and Apparel
Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation
Trade Remedies
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Investment
Cross-Border Trade in Services
Financial Services
Temporary Entry for Business Persons
Telecommunications
Electronic Commerce
Government Procurement
Competition Policy
State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies
Intellectual Property
Labour
Environment
Cooperation and Capacity Building
Competitiveness and Business Facilitation
Development
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Regulatory Coherence
Transparency and Anti-Corruption
Administrative and Institutional Provisions
Dispute Settlement
May a European SME benefit from the Treaty?
Yes. Even though there are some rules that will only benefit companies based in the Member States of the Treaty, there are others directed towards the improvement and harmonization of legal systems and institutions of each Member.
Concerning Intellectual Property Rights, the “National Treatment” and “Most Favoured Nation” principles from the Paris Convention makes it mandatory to apply the same advantages that the State concedes to its own nationals (or nationals from third countries) to the nationals from Signatory Parties (all EU countries belong to the Paris Convention).
We are going to examine how some of these improvements could be very helpful for EU SMEs
Trademarks: What will be the main advantages for EU applicants?
One of the first obligations that the TTP imposes on signatory parties is to ratify two Trademark-Related treaties: The Madrid Protocol and the Singapore Treaty.
The first one establishes the implementation of the Madrid System under WIPO´s administration, which allows for the application of an International Trademark Registration in each member of the Madrid Agreement/ Madrid Protocol. EU citizens and companies will therefore be able to request the protection of their International Registrations in countries such as Peru, Chile, Brunei or Malaysia, which is usually cheaper and simpler than applying for a National Trademark on each of these countries.
On the other hand, the Singapore Treaty aims to harmonise the application, registration and management procedures of Trademark files. Thus, applicants and holders in countries such as Brunei, Chile, Peru, Vietnam and Malaysia will benefit from the advantages of the harmonization of Trademark procedures, which will be closely similar to those in their countries of origin.
Other important changes to highlight are the suppression of the visibility of the sign requirement that is targeted to allow the registration of non-conventional Trademarks (such as smell trademarks and sound trademarks) or the obligation of maintaining an on-line and freely accessible Trademark database.
Other consequences of the TPP is that the three Latin American members of the TPP, Mexico, Chile and Peru, plus Colombia have signed a Joint Declaration aimed at harmonizing their procedures on Trademarks and Patents and to develop good practices to reduce the granting time.
Patents: How EU SMEs can benefit from the TTP provisions?
Under the TTP the Parties are obliged to sign the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure. Hence Patents that include microorganisms as part of it will be accepted in each Member of the Treaty.
Another novelty is the setting of a grace period, whose scope will be extended to 12 months prior the Patent Application. Any disclosure done by the applicant or a third party that obtained the information from the applicant will not be taken into account when evaluating the novelty of the patent (WATCH-OUT! European countries do not provide for a “grace period” therefore any disclosure may jeopardise your European applications’ novelty).
One of the most common problems that EU companies face when patenting abroad is that grant procedures tend to be longer than in Europe. The TTP provides for the possibility of requesting a “Patent Term Adjustment” when unreasonable delays have been incurred during the issuance of the Patent. We should wait to see how TTP Members include such obligation within their laws, but it will certainly have a deterrent effect on Patent granting delays.
The main milestone on Copyright and Related Rights protection is that Signatory Parties must ratify the WIPO Copyright Treaty WCT and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty WPPT.
WCT slightly expands the scope of Protection stated in the Berne Convention concerning economic rights and also includes specific articles on software and databases’ Copyright protection, whereas WPPT harmonizes the protection of certain related rights, namely those of performers and producers of phonograms. Additionally, TPP expands the duration of economic rights to seventy years after the author’s demise.
Enforcement: How will TPP help EU SMEs to enforce their rights?
The scope of the TPP also comprises measures addressed to ensure the effectiveness of the IP enforcement. For example, there are articles that strengthen the role of Technical Protection Measures (TPMs) in digital contents by establishing that the circumvention of such measures will be considered an infringement regardless of the infringement of the Copyright of the content itself.
Another measure towards an effective enforcement is the possibility that the Signatory Parties set pre-established and/or additional damages in case of infringement. Both cases aim to have a deterrent effect. Additionally, pre-established damages will also be very helpful for the purposes of awarding damages to the right holder.
Finally, a series of dispositions are aimed at obtaining the cooperation of Internet Services Providers in order to stop infringements and identify infringers. Such dispositions have been very controversial.
If you want to read more (in Spanish) on these and other TPP related issues take a look here (part I) and here (part II)
Post written by Vicente Zafrilla Diaz-Marta, IP expert at Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
Look who's 1?: Mexico and the Madrid Protocol
The Mexican Institute of Intellectual Property (IMPI) reports that after Mexico’s entry, 54 applications from companies and individuals with business activities in Mexico have submitted their trade mark through the Madrid Protocol. These businesses seek protection mainly in the United States, the European Union and China. In addition, abroad applications notifying Mexico as Designated Office have reached 5,476 of which 1,907 has been granted. Countries that have designated Mexico the most are: the United States, Switzerland, Germany, Spain and China.
IMPI emphasises that the Protocol encourages foreign investment providing legal certainty and giving the opportunity to international companies to enter the domestic market providing an easy accessible mechanism for registration of their marks in our country.
Source IMPI.
Monday, 24 June 2013
Speedy services for trade mark applicants
1. - Does this data i.e. 5.6 month reflect just these cases? Or is this the overall processing time outside the Mobile SIC innovative programme?
2. – In Covarrubia: 'The Madrid Protocol in Latin America: Is Colombia changing business strategies or acting as a guinea pig?' (EIPR, 2013 (35(1))) the research in this matter reveals that it may take approximately eight months to register a trade mark IF NO OPPOSITION IS FILED – but if so, the period may increase to up to two years. Thus, when Mr Robledo noted that the time has been reduced from 2 years to 5.6 months, I wonder if those two years are counting a possible opposition and the 5.6 months are normal proceeding with no opposition. If so, then the information should read from 8 months to 5.6 months, don’t you think?
Anyway apart from these enquiry I must say that there has been an improvement in the examination procedure making a speedy examination trade mark system(regardless of the answer to 1 & 2). This progress may have something to do with Colombia been a party to the Madrid Protocol. Colombia was in need to accommodate its trade mark system as to reflect an 18-month period. The Protocol has a strict policy regarding time and establishes that if the national trade mark office does not notify a decision to the applicant in that period of time the application is considered granted, following the principle of “no news is good news”.
Source SIC.
Monday, 18 March 2013
A good guinea pig?
On Monday 4th March the Inter- ministerial Group of Intellectual Property (GIPI) sent to the Chamber of Foreign Trade (CAMEX) the proposed accession to the Treaty. This indeed is showing the interest of Brazil to join the Madrid Protocol, which will facilitate the registration of national trade marks to other member countries – an international registration that eliminates the multiples process/applications.
According to the news published by INPI, if CAMEX agrees, then it will move to the Casa Civil da Presidência da República (Civil House of the Presidency), and later to the National Congress, which will take the final decision.
Source INPI.
Tuesday, 26 February 2013

IMPI y OMPI firman MoU relacionado con el Sistema de Madrid
Luego del ingreso de México al Sistema de Madrid, ha comenzado a desarrollar acciones para su puesta en marcha, como la suscripción de un Memorándum de Entendimiento (MoU) entre el IMPI y la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI), por el cual se comprometen al envío de información entre ambas partes, por medios electrónicos.Monday, 18 February 2013

México – Entrada en vigor del Sistema de Madrid
Monday, 7 January 2013

The Madrid Protocol in Latin America: Is Colombia changing business strategies or acting as a guinea pig?
The most recent issue of the European Intellectual Property Review (EIPR) i.e. January, 2013 Vol 35 No 1, brings us an article which aims to “analyse the consequences of Colombia’s accession to the Madrid Protocol, a system which grants an international trade mark with the filing of one application only: the central question is whether Colombia’s accession will produce a “snowball effect” in Latin America.” The article can be accessed through Westlaw or Lawtel.
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
México se adhiere al Protocolo de Madrid
Friday, 8 June 2012

Madrid Protocol: Colombia is ready!
The judgment established that the grounds for the decision took into account inter alia: "For having been duly completed, within the stages, debates and constitutional requirements established in the Congress Regulation Acts. Therefore, the Act 1455 of 2011 is declared enforceable, from the formal point of view."
The Colombian Association of Intellectual Property (ACPI) reports that in the judgement the Court analysed the convenience of the accession of the Protocol and how this will open new markets due to facilitating effective protection of trade marks both domestically and in foreign markets, whether their owners are nationals or foreigners. It also explained that the process of national trade mark will remain the same, and that it will not be taken by a new or parallel system, “but with the difference that the international registration gives priority rights in all States signatories to the Protocol.”
Thanks goes to Andres Echeverri (Corporate Legal Team at Organizacion Corona, Colombia) for addressing the news. Also he notes that the last part of a process to approve an international treaty is for the Colombian Constitutional Court to check its constitutionality. Everything in order, Colombia is finally ready.
Wednesday, 30 May 2012

Colombia and Madrid: WIPO names the day
Thursday, 26 April 2012

México: El Senado aprueba la adhesión al Protocolo de Madrid
Nuestros amigos de ALHEN nos han informado que el día de ayer 25 de abril de 2012, el Senado de México aprobó la adhesión de México al Protocolo de Madrid para el Registro Internacional de Marcas, sistema administrado por la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI).
El Protocolo de Madrid facilita el registro de las marcas en el extranjero, ya que permite iniciar el procedimiento, de forma simultánea, en 84 países por medio de la presentación de una sola solicitud ante una Oficina Internacional, en el caso de nuestro país, ante el IMPI, y en uno de los 3 idiomas oficiales (inglés, francés o español).
De acuerdo con el comunicado del Senado, la adhesión al Protocolo de Madrid "...es parte de la modernización que nuestro país está llevando a cabo al marco normativo del sistema marcario, buscando brindar certeza jurídica a las empresas y contribuir a la competitividad de nuestro país".
La decisión del Senado está creando demasiada polémica en México, pues si bien es cierto que la adhesión al protocolo permitiría a las empresas mexicanas ahorrar costes y tiempo en la protección de sus marcas en otros países, por otro lado, se pone en riesgo a empresas mexicanas frente a empresas extranjeras que soliciten una marca idéntica o similar a otra de una mepresa mexicana.
De acuerdo a lo manifestado por el representante de la AMPPI, el problema se basa principalmente en el hecho de que en México no existe un procedimiento de oposición que permitiría a las empresas mexicanas defender sus marcas frente a las que soliciten empresas extranjeras.
Aquí puede consultarse el comunicado de prensa del Senado.

Breaking news: Mexico, Colombia opt for Madrid
Wednesday, 11 April 2012

Corte Constitucional de Colombia declara exequible Protocolo de Madrid
La Corte Constitucional de Colombia en Sentencia C-251/2012 declaró exequible [del lat. exsequibĭlis, que se puede ejecutar] la Ley 1455 del 29 de junio de 2011, “Por medio de la cual se aprueba el Protocolo concerniente al Arreglo de Madrid relativo al Registro Internacional de Marcas‟, adoptado en Madrid el 27 de junio de 1989, modificado el 3 de octubre de 2006 y el 12 de noviembre de 2007” así como el propio Protocolo de Madrid (en adelante "el Protocolo"), en atención a los siguientes fundamentos. Ponente: Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto
