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 precautionary measures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label precautionary measures. Show all posts

Thursday, 20 August 2015

Gilberto Macias (@gmaciasb)

Protección judicial a la Denominación de Origen “Champagne” en Colombia


En el que es el primer caso judicial en la historia de Colombia relacionado con la infracción de una Denominación de Origen protegida (DOP), la Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio (SIC) ha concluido, preliminarmente, que el utilizar expresiones como “Champaña” y “sabor artificial de Champaña”, en productos que no provengan de la provincia francesa de Champagne (Terroir Champagne), es un acto que infringe los derechos de propiedad industrial derivados de la DOP “Champagne”.

El caso en cuestión deriva de una solicitud de medidas cautelares instaurada por el Comité Interprofessionnel Du Vin de Champagne en contra de la empresa colombiana Vinos de la Corte por el uso no autorizado de la DOP “Champagne”.

Los vinos espumosos identificados por la demandante con la denominación ‘Champaña’ provienen del municipio colombiano de Santander de Quilichao (Cauca) y no de Francia.

De momento la SIC ha ordenado a la demandada, como medida cautelar, abstenerse inmediatamente de utilizar expresiones como “Champagne”, “Champaña”, o “sabor artificial Champaña”, así como a retirar inmediatamente cualquier aviso, publicidad o comunicación pública de dichas expresiones en sus productos.  

Hecho que, viendo la página web de la demandada, aún no se ha cumplido.

Estaremos siguiendo de cerca este  asunto pues el mismo resulta muy interesante y relevante para ver cómo se protegen, y respetan, las indicaciones geográficas y denominaciones de origen protegidas de terceros países.

Más información directamente en el comunicado publicado por la Superintendencia aquí.
Read More

Monday, 5 September 2011

Jeremy

It's enough to make your hair stand on end!

Here's some welcome good news for IP rights owners in Venezuela: a court there granted French hair appliance maker Babyliss the opportunity to secure precautionary measures against a business located in the Punto Fijo free-trade zone, which led to the seizure of 588 counterfeit hair straighteners. The court ordered confiscation and destruction of the goods once they had been identified as counterfeit by an expert, and the defendant agreed to cease selling such goods.

Curiously, this decision was based on the provisions of the 1993 Copyright Law, which regulate precautionary measures in favour of IP rights holders, in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines which seek to make up for  deficiencies in the enforcement of trade mark rights. Orders of this nature are based on the analogy and close relationship between copyright and trade mark rights, taking into consideration the legal void resulting from the non-applicability in Venezuela of Andean Community Decision 486 on a Common Industrial Property Regime and the reluctance of Venezuela's National Assembly to pass a new IP law.

Source: "Court confirms protection of IP rights despite deficient legal framework", by Ricardo Alberto Antequera H (Estudio Antequera Parilli & Rodríguez, Venezuela), World Trademark Review, 2 September 2011
Read More

Monday, 19 July 2010

Jeremy

IMPI bond and counter-bond practice gets fine-tuning

The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) may grant various precautionary measures in trade mark infringement and unfair competition suits. These include the seizure or suspension from circulation of infringing goods. To protect the alleged infringer who is eventually cleared of infringement claims, the plaintiff must however post a bond to cover the cost of damage caused through the wrongful grant of preliminary relief -- and IMPI will even vacate its order granting preliminary relief where the defendant posts a counter-bond to cover the cost of his own alleged liability.

In the past, IMPI has required that the counter-bond be double the amount of the original bond. However, by a legislative amendment this June, the quantum of the counter-bond is limited to just 140% of the plaintiff's bond on the basis that parties requesting precautionary measures have on their own initiative posted bonds of exorbitant magnitude, for the purpose of making it impossible for the affected party to post a counter-bond for lack of economic resources. IMPI is now also given discretion to increase the amount of the bond or the counter-bond, where it appears that the original amount is inadequate.

Source: note in the 15 July 2010 issue of the INTA Bulletin (Vol. 65, No. 13)
Read More