IPTango: unfair competition

Showing posts with label unfair competition. Show all posts

Friday, 14 August 2015

MOVISTAR demanda por el "vomistar" de WOM

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr August 14, 2015 No comments:

En marketing dicen que no hay publicidad mala, lo importante es que hablen de ti. Y eso parece ser que está pasando con WOM.

Movistar Chile interpuso una demanda en contra de la empresa de telecomunicaciones WOM (Nextel S.A.), a quien acusa de competencia desleal y trato peyorativo a su marca y al resto de la industria.

La demanda interpuesta por Telefónica Móviles Chile S.A. (Movistar) en el 16º Juzgado Civil de Santiago de Chile (rol C-14687) se basa en que la demandada en su campaña para entrar al mercado chileno ha hecho referencia directa a algunos de sus competidores en el mercado de la telefonía móvil utilizando slogans y frases publicitarias de fácil recordación que, o deforman las marcas de los competidores para ridiculizarlos, denigrarlos o desprestigiarlos, o utilizan estas marcas para hacer juegos de palabras, o como dice la demanda, "parafrasean frases usadas en campañas que alguna vez fueron desplegadas por otras empresas del sector".

En ese contexto general, Movistar basa su demanda en que la publicidad utilizada por WOM utiliza la siguiente frase (considerada como acto material público y notorio):

"Que al navegar no te den ganas de vomistar. Prepárate. WOM".

La demanda agrega que WOM está tratando de “desviar clientes sin tener que realizar inversiones, innovación ni esfuerzo comercial alguno, como corresponde a una libre y sana competencia […] Los nuevos inversionistas que tomaron el control de la compañía demandada, no previeron que llegaban a un país serio, dotado de legislaciones e instituciones que resguardan el correcto y sano funcionamiento de los mercados, y en el que no se permiten atentados a la libre competencia ni a la necesaria lealtad y buena fe que debe informar las relaciones entre competidores”.

Movistar funda su demanda en el artículo quinto de la ley 20.169 ejerciendo las cuatro acciones que dispone la norma: cesación o prohibición del acto, declaración del acto como competencia desleal, remoción de los efectos e indemnización de perjuicios por daño moral o extra patrimonial por 40.000 UF ( 1.500.000 euros aproximadamente).

Las frases usadas en la campaña de entrada que tuvo WOM en Chile hace un par de meses geneneraron además una demanda de Claro y también Movistar, en el Tribunal del Consejo de Autorregulación de Ética Publicitaria (Conar).

Por su parte, Wom en su contestación estimó “inconcebible” la deslealtad concurrencial pues no se puede pensar en ser competencia de Movistar, debido a la alta concentración de tres actores (Movistar, Entel y Claro), quienes poseen más del 90% del mercado actual. Al que le quepa el sayo que se lo ponga.

Fuente: www.pjud.cl (rol C-14687/ 16º JL Civil Santiago)

SHOULDICE: Chile modifies trade mark opposition practice

Jeremy August 06, 2012 No comments:

With regard to oppositions and cancellation actions based on famous or notorious trade marks, oppositions against applications that contravened good business ethics, or oppositions against trade marks that were likely to mislead consumers as to the source of products, the former practice of the Chilean Institute of Industrial Property was to request that such actions be supported by either a trade mark registration or, at least, a trade mark application filed in Chile or abroad. In two decisions of 27 June, this doctrine was modified in respect of applications that were misleading or unfair, but was affirmed with regard to famous or notorious trade marks.

The two decisions of 27 June involved applications by one Urquhart to register as trade marks in Chile the words SHOULDICE and CLINICA SHOULDICE for a medical clinic specialising in the treatment of hernias. The applications were opposed by Shouldice Hospital, of Ontario, Canada, which argued that its trade mark was famous abroad, that registration of the mark in the name of a third party would mislead consumers and that registration of the mark would contravene business ethics. The hospital also cited Articles 6bis (misappropriation of a well-known mark) and 10bis (unfair competition) of the Paris Convention in support of its opposition. By way of evidence the hospital submitted documents demonstrating that Urquhart was a former director of the hospital, as well as press cuttings, copies of patient records and its own company reports -- but no domestic or foreign trade mark registrations or applications.

The opposition based on Article 6bis of the Paris Convention failed, since the Institute of Industrial Property still required that a trade mark on which an opposition is based be registered, whether in Chile or abroad. The opposition based on Article 10bis and on the provisions of local Chilean law was however upheld.

Source: "Institute of Industrial Property upholds oppositions based on unregistered mark" by Sergio Amenábar (Estudio Villaseca, Santiago, Chile) World Trademark Review, 3 August 2012

Paper: The chilean Unfair Competition Act

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr January 27, 2012 No comments:

The unfair competition (family of trademark law system) in Chile is regulated through the Unfair Competition Act number 20.169 published in 2007 amended by Small and Medium-Sized Entities Act number 20.416 (2010). This legal text has been redacted in only ten sections, and the core of its regulation subject matter is defined in a general provision as, “[an] act of unfair competition is any act against good faith or good costumes which, by illegitimate means, is carried out with the purpose of diverting the clientele of a market agent”(art.3).

Aimed to analyze it in order to pose his critical standpoint about this law, chilean lawyer and researcher Fernando Fernández (www.icdt.cl) wrote an interesting paper that is now shared in our blog, called "The chilean Unfair Competition Act: A critical analysis" available full text (PDF) for our readers. Thanks for his gentleness we may enjoy it.

Mexico: Productoras artesanales de cerveza quieren una reforma a la Ley de Competencia

Patricia Covarrubia September 21, 2010 No comments:

Los fabricantes de cerveza artesanal se sienten afectados por dos empresas: Grupo Modelo y Femsa. Estos dos fabricantes ocupan una posición dominante ya que satisfacen más del 99% del mercado y le dejan, de acuerdo con una nota de prensa, únicamente el 0.02% a las otras empresas.

El Grupo Modelo es titular de la cerveza Corona (recientemente entró en el Top 100 del prestigioso ranking de Interbrand Best Global Brands - chequea previo post aquí). Femsa es propiedad de Heineken desde abril de 2010. Estas grandes cerveceras han firmado acuerdos de exclusividad con tiendas, bares y restaurantes lo que impide que las empresas pequeñas crezcan.

Es por eso que las cerveceras artesanales esperan una reforma a Ley de Competencia (Unfair Competition). En este momento existen 3 propuestas de reforma a la ley ante el Senado. Sin embargo, existen movimientos que no las apoyan, como el encabezado por empresas grandes.

Si esta reforma no es aprobada, las cerveceras artesanales buscarán otras oportunidades en espacios libres en México y en el extranjero como en Belice, Australia y Holanda y nuevas estrategias. No obstante, la intención es operar con las mismas ventajas y al mismo nivel que las empresas grandes. Esto abre la pregunta, es Corona una marca fuerte per se, o se ha ganado dicho lugar por la posicion dominante en el mercado Mexicano?

Mas información aquí.

Post escrito por Cristy Umaña(Magister Lvcentinvs)
Editado por Cristy y Patricia C

Telefonica Chile to operate under the trade mark Movistar

Patricia Covarrubia October 25, 2009 No comments:

From today onwards the Chilean company, which is the main telecommunication company in the country, will start working under the trade mark Movistar (see press release in Spanish here). However, note that Telefonica SA owns Telefonica Chile Ltd and, as some of you may know, Telefonica SA is a Spanish company which is one of the largest land lines and mobile telecommunications operators companies in the world.

Telefonica SA operates the Movistar trade mark through Latin America which provides only mobile phone services. In Europe for example, the company works under the trade mark O2. That said, Telefonica SA owns several line operators in the Americas and in Europe and has received quite a few fines under unfair competition laws due to its dominant position (see the European Commission fine here).

Chile will be the first country in which the Spanish company will unite all telecommunications under the same trade mark, namely Movistar. Will the company’s bubble burst? I believe that with this action, there is a great possibility that governments would like to investigate this deal.

Parody as unfair competition? No, says Brazilian court

Jeremy May 27, 2009 No comments:

Can a parody involving TV shows and actors of a broadcasting company be considered a form of unfair competition? According to GLOBO, the biggest broadcasting company in Brazil, the answer is yes, especially when it is promoted by a rival broadcasting company, named RECORD.

The rivalry between these two companies has reached our local courts. At issue are Tom Cavalcante’s parodies, broadcast by RECORD, regarding GLOBO TV programmes and its main actors. Tom Cavalcante is one of the biggest comedians in Brazil and public recognition may be compared to that of Benny Hill and Mr Bean.

To restrrain such acts, GLOBO brought a legal action against RECORD claiming that such parodies go well beyond what is lawful, representing a parasitic activity, entering thus in the domain of unfair competition. For RECORD, the broadcast parodies are in accordance with the constitutional right of freedom of speech. The plaintiff also sought an interlocutory injunction enjoining RECORD for parodying its TV shows, as well as its actors and actresses. This request was denied in a decision recently affirmed by the Appellate Court.

This decision is only the first act of a legal battle that promises to be fierce and to have several acts. In this play, the story is not yet fully written and there are two playwrights working on each side and in opposite ways. Let us see how our local courts, as Deus ex Machina, will decide this dispute.

Written by Jorge Miguel Arruda da Veiga (Di Blasi, Parente, Vaz e Dias & Asociados)