Welcome to our blog for Intellectual Property Law and Practice in Latin America!
¡Bienvenidos a nuestro blog de Derecho y Práctica de la Propiedad Intelectual en Latinoamérica!
Bem-vindo ao nosso blog sobre Direito e Prática de Propriedade Intelectual na América Latina!
Showing posts with label likelihood of confusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label likelihood of confusion. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 November 2017

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr

Chile: Riesgo de confusión (y asociación) entre marcas de vino y cerveza

En fallo dividido, la Corte Suprema de Chile acogió un recurso de casación en el fondo y rechazó la solicitud de registro de la marca Camino del Diablo para cervezas por las similitudes con registro previo Casillero del Diablo de la Viña Concha y Toro.

La sentencia dictada en la causa rol 101.771-2016, por la Segunda Sala -integrada por los ministros Carlos Künsemüller, Manuel Antonio Valderrama, Juan Manuel Muñoz Pardo y los abogados (i) Jaime Rodríguez y Jorge Lagos– acogió la oposición presentada por la empresa vitivinícola al registro de la marca de cerveza, por la similitud gráfica y fonética con su marca "Casillero del Diablo". En definitiva, resolvió que el tribunal de la instancia incurrió en error de derecho en la aplicación de las normas sustantivas que regulan la irregistrabilidad puesto que no obstante haber concurrido los presupuestos que hacían procedente los motivos de prohibición de registro del artículo 20 letra f) y h) de la Ley de Propiedad Industrial, esto es, la posibilidad de error, engaño o confusión, no los aplicó.

La casación advierte que dado que lo discutido no es fáctico no requiere pronunciarse sobre aspectos probatorios (según la sana crítica), pues la cuestión se reduce a descartar motivos de irregistrabilidad por la posibilidad de confusión, examen que debe efectuarse mediante la ponderación de las características de las señas en conflicto. En otras palabras, declara básicamente que el riesgo de confusión (y de asociación) no es una cuestión de hecho, sino que de Derecho. Así, corresponde a los jueces del fondo calificar la irregistrabilidad mediante un juicio de subsunción racional, sin necesidad de prueba. 

En cuanto al fondo, resolvió que "concretando estos conceptos al caso que se revisa, la similitud gráfica y fonética entre los signos es evidente. En efecto, la sustitución de algunos componentes no dota al signo de fisonomía propia, pues al confrontar los conjuntos permanece la analogía. Dicha característica exige un análisis de probabilidad de confusión que demuestre cómo, a pesar de tal semejanza, el fin del símbolo se cumple, cual es identificar a los bienes como provenientes de una fuente particular y asignados a un fin o producto específico. Sin embargo, del estudio de las coberturas que cada seña ampara se consolida la equivalencia dada la identidad de clases y productos que distinguen, a saber, bienes de una misma naturaleza que compiten en un mercado conformado por igual público consumidor y que la oponente comercializa a través de la reconocida marca "Casillero del Diablo", lo que generará toda clase de errores y confusiones en relación al origen empresarial de los productos impidiendo una coexistencia pacífica en el mercado".

El voto de minoría correspondió al ministro Juan Muñoz Pardo, que en síntesis argumentó para rechazar el recurso lo siguiente: del mérito de autos se desprende que los contendientes se limitaron a hacer valer sus pretensiones, uno en orden a obtener un registro específico y el otro a oponerse al mismo asilado en las elucubraciones que invocó; y el tribunal, atento al rol que le corresponde, elucidó si ellos se subsumían o no en las disposiciones sustantivas llamadas a resolver la cuestión, actividad de carácter eminentemente valorativa e interpretativa susceptible de acarrear la invalidación del fallo si se verifica atropello de ley, o sea, cuando se da a las normas decisoria litis un alcance ajeno del asignado por el legislador, sea ampliando o restringiendo su preceptiva o al hacer una falsa adaptación de las mismas, como sucede cuando impone que rijan en una hipótesis no prevista por la ley o deja de aplicarlas en el caso reglamentado. Con apego a las directrices que brindan las normas y principios consagrados en la legislación sobre propiedad industrial y que emanan de los artículos 19 y 20 de su ley especial, la valoración del signo que se realizó por los magistrados no aparece como el fruto de un razonamiento extraño a los márgenes normativos del derecho marcario y, por ende, la conclusión alcanzada constituye una interpretación acertada en lo que incumbe a las causales de irregistrabilidad convocadas, pronunciamiento que no se vislumbra como distante de los parámetros de estudio propios de esta disciplina, como los utilizados en este evento, del análisis de los signos y su confrontación, en vista de lo cual no se divisa el error de derecho pretendido
Read More

Thursday, 20 June 2013

Patricia Covarrubia

Burger King no more King

    No comments:
Last week the Colombian ‘Consejo de Estado’ (a Supreme Court in the Administrative field) ratified the decision taken by the Colombian Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC) in regards to the registration of the trade mark ‘King de Pollo’ (Chicken King). After SIC denied the registration of the trade mark ‘King de Pollo’ to Burger King Corp, the company appealed up to the Council of State to revoke the decision (Resolution No. 08350 of May 14, 1998) and thus, to allow Burger King the registration of the said trade mark.


The dispute started on 1996 when Burger King applied for registration of the mark in Class 29 Nice Classification. The application was opposed by a third party, Kokorico Ltd based on its earlier mark ‘King Line’ registered in Class 42 Nice Classification. SIC Directorate upheld the opposition and this was reconsidered and confirmed again on June 2004 (Resolution No. 12522).

My favourite King..
The claimant argued that the mark applied for had a special font and used the word ‘pollo’ which is an expression indicative of the product (Class 29). It went further to explain that the claimed mark was composed and thus indivisible. The mark ‘King de Pollo’ was not affected by the prior existence of the trade mark ‘King Line’ for class 42 because they were different marks in reading and writing. It was noted that Burger King is a valid registered trade mark for Classes 29, 30 and 42, and that the word King was their based brand. They were looking for a new way to indicate a product by adding the word 'pollo', making it more distinctive. It also argued that SIC did not conduct a thorough examination of the sign, since they fractioned the mark omitting the design like the font -- in other words SIC test was salami slice test rather that global appreciations test.

On the other side of the coin, SIC argued that the mark applied for and the registered trade mark were likely to be confused. They do have a common element, which is the expression ‘King’ and in this word is where the distinctiveness rests [why? Just because it is the first word that we see in the mark?]. SIC continued... even though the sign was accompanied by the term ‘de Pollo’, it did not have the required distinctiveness.

I guess then that the mark was not allowed to be registered in two grounds: (1) relative grounds: likelihood of confusion with third party trade mark and (2) absolute grounds: lack of distinctiveness. However, regarding absolute grounds, surely the mark has acquired distinctiveness through use (secondary meaning) which is a straightforward case proven by evidence. The one that I cannot come to terms is the mark being confused by the earlier mark. I cannot see how the sign ‘King de Pollo’ and ‘King Line’ can be confused – even if we do a salami slice test! The second word does not mean the same (they are even different languages), and they are not written nor pronounced in the same way.

Source: newspaper La República.

Read More

Monday, 18 February 2013

Patricia Covarrubia

Colombia: round up cases in the world of trade marks

    No comments:
The Colombian newspaper ‘La Republica’ is full of goodies lately! Over the weekend I read three trade marks applications that were denied. The cases all were decided in first instance by the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC).

Cheese Company

SIC has denied registration to the ‘Cheesecake Factory’, an American multinational company, due to having phonetic similarity with the national firm ‘Cheesecake Company’, a micro company in Antioquia.

For those fans of ‘Big Bang Theory’, the Warner Bros TV comedy program, must surely be familiar with the café where penny works i.e. the Cheesecake factory. SIC established that the word sign ‘Cheesecake Factory’ "partially reproduced the spelling and grammatical structure of the Colombian business, which would prevent the distinction of the mark". Also, it added that the mark would cause confusion among consumers.

The Cheesecake Company is a small company of 5 employees that appears to be a success in its small town, selling desserts, pies, cakes and ice cream. Cheesecake Factory offers the same variety of desserts, plus salt food and bar service; it has 36 offices in the United States and has expanded to Mexico, Dubai and UAE.

A good decision? There is clearly a similar mark for a similar product BUT, should have the mark Cheesecake Company been allowed registration in the first place? It is describing the goods that it represents and although the words are in English for a Spanish speaker nations, I do believe that the word ‘cheesecake’ has become part of the common vocabulary in many café bars. Yet, Cheesecake Factory said that they are looking to negotiate with Cheesecake Company.

Nat Geo

International Excess society SAS applied to register the word mark 'Nat Geo' for footwear (sought application in Class 25 Nice Clarification). The company is based in Chile where it has been trading for more than 22 years. It has also business in Peru, Ecuador and Argentina. While this application did not receive opposition, SIC denied the registration due to be confusingly similar to 'National Geographic’ that is registered for the same goods among others.

National Geographic is also known by its abbreviation 'Nat Geo'. I believe that this word mark is well known at least in my household!! Specially the TV Channel that is dedicated to the ecosystem, science, human body, animal life, history, travel, and so on and so forth.

As said opposition was not received but SIC explained that it has the authority and obligation to consider whether the mark applied for did clash with a previous one and was likely to cause confusion as in this case. While the application for the word mark received was for ‘Nat Geo’ and the one in existence in the register is National Geographic, SIC extended to say that ‘Nat Geo' is an abbreviation of the registered trade mark.

A good decision?
 Let’s be clear in something, is ‘Nat Geo’ registered as a trade mark? I do not quite follow SIC in this occasion. Does it mean that if I registered my name i.e. Patricia, nobody else can’t register Pat? This is an absurd outcome. While I do recognize that the term Nat Geo may have become well known, that is totally different from the grounds of not registering because of a previous trade mark i.e. National Geographic. The reason perhaps could be that there exist an early right i.e. an unregistered trade mark that has acquired sufficient reputation through use in that particular country.

Another issue that comes into my attention is more to do with trade and business. I do presume that the word sign has been registered in Chile where it has been trading for more than 20 years; also that they have been trading in Ecuador and Peru and these two countries are part of the Andean Community of Nation (CAN) as well as Colombia. I wonder what the status of this mark in these countries is and whether the trade in this bloc will be affected. Can anyone from these countries enlighten us in this matter?

KENZO

The word sign KENZO was looking to be registered by the French firm and perfumery (registration was sought in Class 25 Nice classification) . It did find opposition from 'Kenzo Jeans', an active textile company which trades on that name and which does have registered such word name as a company in the SIC. Kenzo Jeans argued that the word mark requested is ‘identical’ to its trade name that the company has been using for 23 years, inducing consumers to confusion. To validate this action, Kenzo Jeans submitted as evidence the following: certificates of deposit of its commercial name, invoices issued by suppliers on behalf of Kenzo Jeans, photographs of commercial establishments and a certified copy of the resolution by which was awarded a civil order of merit in grade Golden Cross. KENZO in response to this action affirmed that KENZO is a reputable mark in the field of perfumery; it has a high level of recognition, quality, consistent and widespread use in the domestic and international markets and therefore, SIC ought to give acceptance to the application for registration. SIC proceeded with the examination of registrability and thus, considering all the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties ratified the protection on the market of Kenzo Jeans and added that the sign KENZO could NOT be registrable.

A good  decision?
This is a sensible decision, because while KENZO can claim that they are now a well-known mark, this was not the case 23 years ago when Kenzo Jeans started to trade and did legally register its trade name.

Another curiosity is the fact that SIC said it is an identical mark. I believe that the marks are not identical but similar after applying a global appreciation test. For example KENZO is a single term while Kenzo Jeans is a combination of words…yes KENZO is a word that stands up but it does not mean that the whole sign is identical.
Read More

Thursday, 7 April 2011

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr

Colombia: Conflicto entre American Legend y American Gold

El Consejo de Estado resolverá si el registro de "American Legend" concedido la firma griega Karelia Tobacco Company, debe ser anulado, por la demanda instaurada por la Compañía Colombiana de Tabaco- Coltabaco dueña de la marca "American Gold".

Según la demanda, el registro previo de "American Gold" genera riesgo de confusión debido a que las similitudes entre sí son fundamentales, y se refieren a los mismos productos cubiertos por la misma clase 34 del nomenclátor de Niza, que distingue el tabaco; artículos para fumadores y cerillas.

En su oportunidad procesal Coltabaco se opuso al registro de Karelia en el año 2004, ante la División de Signos Distintivos por la causal de irregistrabilidad planteada en la Decisión 486 de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones, debido a que American Legend es "similarmente confundible con American Gold y se pretende proteger los mismos productos, lo que incremente la posibilidad de confusión en el público consumidor". La oposición fue rechazada por no presentar semejanzas que generen confusión directa o indirecta pues el elemento predominante de cada signo es el denominativo, cada uno de los cuales tiene diferente significado. La División estableció además que aunque ambos signos cuenta en sus elementos gráficos (un ave), éstas se representan de forma diferente, lo que indica que los elementos figurativos y nominativos proporcionan a cada marca distintividad suficiente para ser distinguidos por el público consumidor. Bajo estos argumentos, la entidad en primera instancia decidió conceder el registro de "American Legend".

Coltabaco decidió recurrir de reposición con apelación subsidiaria buscando que la entidad anulara el registro. En primera instancia la División confirmó su fallo en 2007 y envió el expediente a la Superintendencia Delegada de la Propiedad Industrial con el fin de resolver la apelación presentada. En segunda instancia, Coltabaco sostuvo que la División se equivocó al conceder el registro, pues las marcas en conflicto presentan semejanzas que podrían generar confusión entre los consumidores en caso de coexistir en el mercado. Además, si bien las marcas no son idénticas, tienen elementos en común lo que podría generar en la "mente de los consumidores la idea equivocada que provienen del mismo fabricante" lo que afectaría el derecho en cabeza de la firma Coltobaco al tener la marca "American Gold". La Delegatura para la Propiedad Industrial estimó que si bien los signos coinciden en la expresión "American", sus denominaciones tienen significados conceptuales propios que son comprensibles por el público. La entidad estableció que "American Legend" se refiere a leyenda americana, mientras que "American Gold" es oro americano, lo que es fácilmente reconocido por el público medio. Junto a esto, el consumidor puede recordar los significados sin que se vea inducido a error en cuanto a los productos o en su origen empresarial.
Esto llevó a que se confirmara la decisión de la División de Signos Distintivos en el sentido de conceder el registro de la marca "American Legend" a la firma griega.

En la actual sede de discusión  la Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio defiende el registro concedido a Karelia al indicar que si bien las marcas comparten la expresión "American" este no es el factor relevante en los signos y que en su conjunto puede ser diferenciado por el consumidor, además las características gráficas de las marcas hace que el público pueda identificar que se trata de diferentes compañías.

A propósito de este asunto, es recurrente en el mundo del conflicto marcario que tanto los planteamientos como las decisiones giren en torno a establecer si en un  un caso dado las circunstancias de hecho (referidas a los signos) se  adecuan o no a un estándar modelo contenido en una norma, para definir la existencia de la causal invocada, siendo una de las más frecuentes (mundialmente) el riesgo de confusión (likelihood of confusion). Dicha tarea está referida a una valoración técnica que, en síntesis, implica una análisis semiótico, propio de la Semiología (o Semiótica en la terminología de Pierce). Así como en el mundo de las patentes el examen pericial es previo a la resolución jurídica, no sería ajeno a la metodología industrial el uso de reportes técnicos en materia de signos, para uniformar criterios, sin perjuicio de los sofisticados y extensos argumentos (esencialmente comparativos y apoyados en precedentes) de las sentencias marcarias de algunos tribunales especializados (destacables son las de la comunidad andina y el TJUE en sede prejudicial) que han llevado a crear criterios de valoración complementarios del estándar base. En definitiva, desde un punto de vista lógico la denominada justificación interna de la decisión judicial (su forma lógica) requiere una adecuada justificación externa (de contenido) que bien podría aportarse mediante informes de semiología aplicada al mundo de las marcas cuando la discusión se decida en una comparación de signo contra signo.
Read More

Monday, 12 January 2009

Jeremy

MAC POLLO safe from risk of confusion

A decision of the Colombian Trademark Office last September allowed the registration of the MAC POLLO word and figurative mark for products in Class 29, in the face of an opposition by McDonald’s Corporation based on its previously registered trade marks. The opposition was based on the opponent's earlier MCDONALD’S, RONALD MACDONALD and MCRIB word marks, and on the word and figurative mark MCDONALD’S.

According to the Office the MAC POLLO mark was not strongly similar to any of the McDonald’s marks to the extent that could lead to consumer confusion.  Although all the compared marks contained the prefixes MAC- or MC-, those prefixes were used in various Scottish surnames, for which reason they were very well known by the consuming public. The POLLO element of the applicant's mark, together with the various elements of the McDonald's marks that were not found in the applicant's mark, removed the likelihood of confusion.

Source: Luz Helena Adarve (Cárdenas & Cárdenas Abogados, Bogotá), writing in the INTA Bulletin, Vol. 64, No. 1, 1 January 2009
Read More

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Jeremy

FINESSE, MEN's FITNESS confusingly similar, rules Colombia Council

Mariz Gestao e Investimentos Limitada sought to register the words MEN'S FITNESS as a trade mark for goods in Class 25. Colombian company Alpina Productos Alimenticios SA opposed, saying that mark was confusingly similar to its earlier FINESSE registered trade mark for goods in Class 29. The Colombian Trade Mark Office dismissed the opposition and allowed the registration. Alpina then filed an action for the cancellation of MEN'S FITNESS before the Colombian Council of State, pleading both likelihood of confusion and that its FINESSE mark was well known.

The Council of State found that Alpina's FINESSE mark was a well-known trade mark under Andean Community Decision 486, confirming that it was thus entitled to a special degree of protection. It then assessed the risk of confusion, holding the marks to be confusingly similar from visual, phonetic and conceptual points of view: if both marks were used concurrently on the market under equal conditions, consumers would be confused as to the origin of the goods.

The Council added that, according to a pre-judicial interpretation issued by the Tribunal of Justice of the Andean Community, confusion is likely to result from the "joint and synchronized impressions created by the marks" especially since, in assessing the likelihood of confusion, their similarities rather than their differences should be taken into account. Taking this into account, MEN'S FITNESS was invalid.

[source: Fernando Triana, Triana Uribe & Michelsen, Bogota, writing in World Trademark Report]
Read More