IPTango: scent marks

Showing posts with label scent marks. Show all posts

Tuesday, 29 September 2015

How explicit a logo can be?

Patricia Covarrubia September 29, 2015 No comments:

Checking the Peruvian newspaper La Republica, I encountered with the recent registration (No 618011-2015) of the word mark ‘Guti’ and its respective logo in Class 10 of the Nice classification system (including in particular: hygienic rubber articles). The registration refers to condoms under the sub-title product. Now so far so good….but wait…who is Guti? What is the logo?

INDECOPI

Guty Carrera is a famous Peruvian model who has participated in modelling for underwear labels; he also has participated in reality tv shows, and even took part in a campaign celebrating the International Condom Day aiming to encourage the responsible use of condoms reducing sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancies. He is renowned as a love rat and his lovers claim that he is ‘gifted’, alluding to his manhood. Then, appreciating Guty’s story we acknowledge the clever use of the ‘t’ in the logo.

The analysis comes towards Art 135 of Decision 486 CAN referring to signs that are not capable of been registered. In this case Art 135(p) refers to signs that are contrary to public order and morality. Is the logo against morals? This simple question open a Pandora box: who can actually determine if a sign breaches the public order and morality clause? Should it be a centralized definition of what is to be caught under this bar? In reality we open the debate: what is considered to be profane or vulgar? The beauty of this blog is that we come from different backgrounds, religion, sexual orientations, ages (and eras) and what can be moral to me, it may be vulgar to you (or vice versa).

The logo

Is the logo vulgar? Offensive? Objectionable? One need to analyse who will be expose to the logo. While the logo may contain quite a ‘graphic’ representation, it may be approved (as it was). Q&A go in the line that children and elderly are not the target market; they are not sold in toys shops; tv advertisements would be limited. A mere offence to a section of the public cannot be enough to bar a sign from registration. It has to be something that causes outrage, or it is considered by the society that it is against social values. In this case, the logo has sexual implications but it works for the goods applied for. A different story would be if the logo is for clothing, don’t you agree?

Costa Rica upholds refusal to register OLYMPIKUS logo

Jeremy April 29, 2014 No comments:

Brazilian company Calcado Azaleia failed in its appeal against rejection of its application to register the mark OLYMPIKUS & Logo in Costa Rica for “clothing, footwear, headgear” (Class 25), following an opposition by the Costa Rican National Olympic Committee.

The Law of Creation of the Costa Rican Institute for Sports and Recreation and Legal Regimen of Physical Education, Sports and Recreation grants the local Olympic Committee exclusive use of the words “Olympic”, “Olympiad” and the five interlocking rings of the International Olympic Committee. Calcado Azaleia had submitted that this law only protected the Committee against use of identical marks, that its own mark was neither identical nor confusingly similar and it was a famous mark in a number of other jurisdictions -- none of which swayed the Tribunal Registral Administrativo, Costa Rica's administrative appeal board. According to the Tribunal, the application was barred from registration on both absolute and relative grounds and that, even if the mark were famous elsewhere, that did not affect its registrability in Costa Rica.

Source, from which further legal detail is available: news item in INTA Bulletin vol.69, no.8, published by the International Trademark Association, 15 April 2014

CHILE: Directrices de procedimiento de registro de marcas

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr September 09, 2010 No comments:

Un reciente post informó de dos nuevos instrumentos de mejora de gestión en el procedimiento de registro de marcas en Chile: Clasificador en línea y Directrices de procedimiento de registro de marcas comerciales ("Directrices de marcas"). Esta última herramienta, de gran utilidad práctica para operadores jurídicos y público en general, consta de 547 páginas divididas en 30 "Partes" más una "Parte final" (Glosario), y tiene el mérito de la novedad por de ser la única de su especie en Latinoamérica,según se informó al momento de su lanzamiento.

Una cuestión de interés estrictamente jurídico, relacionada con este instrumento de apoyo, es su naturaleza. Según su imperatividad podría estimarse una manifestación del llamado "soft law" (término propio del derecho internacional) que son instrumentos sin fuerza legal vinculante que tratan materias de orden normativo, y que son usuales en el derecho comparado (por ejemplo, Guidelines). Previendo el problema, estas Directrices de Marcas chilenas (de fuerte contenido procesal) cuidan mucho de dejar establecido en la Exención de Responsabilidad que no son fuente del derecho, y que su texto sólo "recoge los usos generales aplicados por este Servicio en el análisis y procesamiento de las solicitudes para el registro de marcas, pero no constituye, ni constituirá, una fuente propia de derecho y no deroga ni modifica las disposiciones normativas que regulan los derechos de propiedad industrial. En este sentido el presente documento busca proporcionar lineamientos generales, no vinculantes, para ser tenidos en cuenta al momento de presentar una solicitud de registro. Toda solicitud para el registro, anotación o renovación de marca deberá ser analizada caso a caso, de acuerdo a las leyes y normativas vigentes y relevantes a cada situación particular".

Este esfuerzo de acercar las normas de fondo, y especialmente de forma, al público general tiene como marco al Principio de Legalidad, tanto en su generación como en su contenido. El proceso de generación demoró más de 6 meses de trabajo, e incorporó consultas públicas a los usuarios, agentes operadores y a la comunidad en general. El borrador estuvo disponible durante un mes en el sitio web de la institución para la recepción de comentarios, lo que valida y justifica la utilidad de su contenido, pero deja su legalidad limitada a la función de difusión y prestación de servicios a los usuarios del art. 3 d) de la ley 20.254 que creó el INAPI. En cuanto al contenido procesal del texto, al recoger usos y prácticas (que, de por sí, en el sistema chileno no constituyen derecho, como costumbre) se refiere necesariamente a procedimientos acogidos a la Ley de Propiedad Industrial, a su Reglamento y a las normas supletorias (ley 18.575, 19.880, 18.120, Código de Procedimiento Civil, etc.), tanto en su función registral como tribunal especial de primera instancia, por lo que su contenido es la fijación escrita de prácticas o costumbres procesales, que según el derecho chileno (art. 2 del Código Civil), requieren, a su vez, de una remisión legal que le otorgue fuerza vinculante, por lo que no constituyen derecho, ni interpretación administrativa ni judicial del mismo.

En ese sentido, y más allá de su innegable utilidad, tal vez habría sido mejor una denominación con un significado más neutro ("Manual” o “Guía”) pues el concepto Directriz ("Conjunto de instrucciones o normas generales para la ejecución de algo": RAE) tiene un contenido normativo ajeno a la tradición jurídica chilena, que no es armónico con la intención informativa del texto publicado por el Inapi .

Colombia: Register your trade mark, do not lose your business!

Patricia Covarrubia July 19, 2010 No comments:

Todays headline refers to the slogan that the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC) has been using to promote the registration of trade marks. The campaign is directed to small businesses and entrepreneurs and it has been running since early this year. Basically the campaign not only encourages businesses to protect their trade marks and thus making them aware to the benefits of registering the mark and the risks involved if they do not do so, but also offers special discount of 25 percent for the registration of its mark – adding a 5% discount if the registration of the mark is made online.

The SIC webpage announces that due to the positive impact of the campaign and at the request of the chambers of commerce, the SIC extended the deadline until 31 December.

The SIC together with Chambers of Commerce, the mayor of Bogota and ACOPI, has trained over 400 entrepreneurs in the second quarter of this year. The main target is clarification between registering a business in the chambers of commerce and registering a trade mark at the SIC. While registering a business will demonstrate publicly the owner as a trader and its type of business, it does not protect its trade mark. The note continues to said that “if your trade mark is not recorded at the SIC, it does not exist”.

While I can pass judgement on this last sentence by saying that a trade mark which is not registered can still be protected under unfair competition laws (I cannot said that it is as easy and smooth process; on the contrary, it is a long, costly and tedious one) the campaign is a truthful one. Small businesses need to be aware that by just registering their businesses with a chosen trade name, it is not the same as registering and protecting a trade mark. For that reason, I can see that the campaign tries to illustrate entrepreneurs in a logical manner. That said, I cannot disapprove of the movement but on the contrary, praise it.

The whiff of trade marks: scent marks reach Argentina

Jeremy November 13, 2009 No comments:

Writing for International Law Office ("First Scent Trademark Registered"), Juan Martín Aulmann and Daniel R Zuccherino (Obligado & Cia) review the current Argentine provisions on the registration of non-traditional signs as trade marks. Of particular interest is a recent decision on an application to register a scent. The authors write:

"On January 30 2009 the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) registered its first scent trademark to be applied to the container of a product in Argentina. The trademarks are registered as 2.115.161 to 2.115.166 and issued as Numbers 2.270.653 to 2.270.657, respectively. They are owned by L'Oréal and registered in International Class 3.

The registrations were granted by Resolution 131/09. In all cases the scents comprised a "Fragrance of…[different fruits in each case]… applied to the Containers". If the fragrances had been applied to the product rather than to the container, the INPI's criteria would surely have been different, since in certain cases the application of the fragrance to the product itself (eg, strawberry, raspberry and peach scents) would have beeen objected to by those parties that manufacture such products in the public domain.

L'Oréal's applications for the scent trademark registrations date back many years, following a third-party opposition when they were first published. When legal action was brought for the withdrawal of such opposition, the court emphasized that in order to determine the registration of a sign, it is not a "substantial requirement" under Argentine trademark legislation that such sign be "visually perceptible" or "graphically represented". Subsequently, the intervening court notified the INPI about the withdrawal of the third-party opposition.

Consequently, the final decision to deny or grant registration of the trademarks in question fell to the application authority (ie, the INPI). By means of a brief report, the INPI evaluated the marks' intrinsic and extrinsic distinctive capacity (compared to other identical or similar signs in the same class), and reached the above conclusion, permitting registration of the scent trademarks.

It is important to highlight the criteria adopted by the INPI when it originally accepted the registration applications and ordered the corresponding publications and now proceeds to grant such non-traditional trademarks without demanding that they fulfil impossible requirements (eg, graphic representation or visual perception)".

Descriptive and Distinctive marks – walking a fine line between granting or not granting registration in Peru

Patricia Covarrubia November 12, 2009 No comments:

Marlene Prada Bautista applied to register at the INDECOPI a figurative mark featuring a rectangular label which contains the stylized shape of a woman’s body and the word mark ‘fájate’; colour was not claimed. The word ‘fajate’ comes from the reflexive verb ‘fajar’ meaning I wrap myself. The actual item which you use to wrap yourself with is called ‘faja’. Generally a ‘faja’ is used by women who would like to look well shaped (in South America we use it mainly after giving birth and for special occasions – not that I ever needed one!) and is common in the sport arena for bracing or supporting your back.

The application originally was for ‘shoes, hats, dresses, lingerie, underbust, shapewear, and cyclist’s brace’ (Class 25). The question on this case was whether the sign was descriptive against the goods applied for.

The Office refused the mark considering inter alia that (1) the term ‘fájate’ comes from the action ‘fajar’, meaning to wrap part of your body with a ‘faja’. Therefore, the dispute term will be perceived by the public as an invitation to use ‘fajas’ as a underbust, shapewear and cyclist brace and thus, relating to the products that the manufacturer wants to distinguish; (2) even though the figurative mark presents other symbols, they are not distinctive since the disputed term is the one that stands out.

The applicant inserted a motion for reconsideration but this time limiting the sign to only ‘shoes, hats and dress’. The Office however, upheld the decision considering that the term was still descriptive of the goods applied for. It explained that there are some dresses that in the inside contain a type of ‘faja’ as to stylize the shape of the person wearing it (I wonder if the Officer tested the product). The view was also extended as to consider the need to keep free policy.

Miss Prada appealed to the Sala de Propiedad Intelectual (court of first instance) requesting the decision to be annulled. However, at this time, she asked for the term ‘fájate’ to be avoided. The court started to analyse what a descriptive term is (Art 135 (e) Andean Community Decision 486) and what makes a mark distinctive (Art 135 (b) Andean Community Decision 486).

To sum up, the decision turned very much on the particular facts. The court studied the sign as a whole eluding the term. Specifically, the court examined the rectangular label which corners are rounded, containing in the inside a stylized shape of a woman’s body and a characteristic writing. Therefore, the court reversed the Office’s decision due to considering that the sign was distinctive against the goods applied for. Uh? did I miss something?

The moral of the story
Stories are meant to teach you a lesson. In law, we look for eliminating the complexity of issues. However, this case leaves us with the same questions as always – where to draw the line when in presence of descriptive marks and those that are not capable of distinguish? I believe that these issues are indeed a question of fact. That said, if we analyse the case I agree with the Officer’s view. He rightly evaluated the sign as a whole. At this stage we must remember that the term was claimed as being part of the mark, but yet the Officer said that those other parts of the sign were not distinctive because the only distinctive part of the sign was the term (which was descriptive). I wonder why the Court did not see that.

If we remove the part that stands out, we are left with a quite common label for ladies evening wear. But then, this will not be a matter of descriptiveness but a matter of distinctiveness instead. If the term can be used by anyone in commerce, what makes this particular sign distinctive from others?

Clearly, decisions are made case by case, yet I consider that the mark in this case is one of those that can go either way. I finish by saying that there is indeed such a thing as bad trade marks and hence, manufacturers that do like risks (terrible tanguero that does not compete fairly!). Evidently, to own a mark that can be easily associated with others, will make the former weak.

The case in Spanish can be found in here.

Slogan or design? If you've got VTR perhaps it doesn't matter ...

Jeremy August 04, 2009 No comments:

The INTA Bulletin, Vol. 64, No. 14 (August 1, 2009) reports on the decision the Chilean Intellectual Property Court of Appeals (1 April 2009) to reverse the first instance decision of the Chilean Industrial Property Department (INAPI) to refuse registration of the trade mark SOMOS LOS QUE TIENEN VTR (in English, "We are the ones who have VTR") since it had been filed as a figurative mark rather than as a slogan.

Slogans are registrable under Chilean Industrial Property Law (Law No. 19,039), Article 19, so long as they are combined or associated with a registered trade mark for the product, service or commercial or industrial establishment for which they are to be used. Article 23 of the same Law qualifies this by specifying that slogans must be registered as word marks, which means they cannot contain any design element.

The IP Court of Appeals, reversing INAPI’s decision, said the applied-for mark could not have been filed as a slogan because it was actually a design, considering also that -- taking it as a whole -- the mark was sufficiently distinctive to be used in commerce without being misleading or inducing error.

Nuevo requerimiento de búsqueda para presentación de solicitudes de marcas en Venezuela.

Gilberto Macias (@gmaciasb) June 11, 2009 No comments:

Según nos informan nuestros apreciados amigos del Estudio Antequera Parilli y Rodríguez, la Oficina Venezolana de Propiedad Industrial (SAPI) ha emitido un Aviso Oficial notificando que a partir del pasado 5 de mayo de 2009, toda nueva solicitud de registro de marca debe ser acompañada de los resultados oficiales de búsqueda.

En consecuencia, a partir de dicha fecha, todas las nuevas solicitudes de marcas sufrirán un retraso en su presentación, pues es necesario esperar la entrega de los resultados oficiales de búsqueda a los efectos de cumplir con el nuevo requisito impuesto.

El incumplimiento de este requisito trae como consecuencia que la nueva solicitud de registro no sea admitida a trámite y no le sea asignado el número correspondiente.

Más información aquí. Gracias por la noticia Natalia, Ricardo y Dani.

Cancún la palabra mágica

Gilberto Macias (@gmaciasb) September 16, 2008 No comments:

En relación con nuestra entrada anterior respecto de la marca que lanzará la Secretaría de Turismo del DF para procurar una mejor imagen a la Ciudad de México, nuestro amigo Hugo Alday nos informa que el Estado de Quintana Roo a través de la SEDETUR y de los Fideicomisos que operan en los diversos destinos turísticos de esa entidad federativa, es punta de lanza en México en esta materia.

Así, la marca CANCÚN LA PALABRA MÁGICA & Diseño, ha tenido una enorme difusión, ha tenido una enorme difusión a nivel nacional desde el año de 1997 en que la empresa española THR Asesores en Turismo ganó la licitación internacional para crear dicha marca.

Hoy en día esta marca, cuya principal característica distintiva deviene de la estilización de una obra del dominio público como los glifos que se encuentran en las paredes del jaguar ubicadas en Chichén Itzá , se utiliza principalmente en clase 35 para promoción y publicidad oficial; encontrando esta marca prácticamente en todo el mundo, incluyendo la camiseta de uno de los equipos de futbol más antiguos de México como lo es el Atlante.

Existen otras marcas turísticas de Quintana Roo que se encuentran bien posicionadas en el mercado turístico mundial como RIVIERA MAYA, COSTA MAYA y CARIBE MEXICANO, mismas que siguen los pasos de CANCUN LA PALABRA MAGICA que hoy en día se encuentra protegida en diversas naciones, tales como Estados Unidos, China, Canadá, así como la Unión Europea, entre otros.

Gracias Hugo por tan interesante aportación.

INPI in Argentina shifts stance on coexistence agreements

Jeremy June 17, 2008 No comments:

The current issue of the International Trademark Association's INTA Bulletin (Vol. 63, No. 11) carries a short feature entitled "INPI Signals More Flexible Approach to Trademark Coexistence". Written by Raquel Flanzbaum and Manuel Alonso (Mitrani, Caballero & Ojam Abogados, Buenos Aires), it summarises the current position under the Argentine trade mark law. Till now, no mark may be registered if an identical or almost identical mark has already been applied for or registered for the same goods or services by someone else. While INPI, the national rights administration bureau, has applied this rule irrespective of whether the applicant and the earlier rights holder/applicant have entered into a coexistence agreement -- but recent cases indicate that INPI has softened its position, taking such agreements into account.