IPTango

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

Juicio marcario entre LAN (Chile) y LAM, en Europa

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr February 08, 2011 1 comment:

El 8 de febrero el Tribunal General de la Unión Europea (TGUE) ha confirmado el registro de marca de Air Nostrum (Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo “LAM”) que había sido objeto de oposición por parte de la compañía aérea de Chile LAN Airlines S.A. Los jueces de Luxemburgo con su sentencia (full text) confirmaron el criterio de la Oficina de armonización del mercado interior (marcas dibujos y modelos), que en sus dos instancias desestimó las pretensiones de LAN Airlines de impedir el registro de la marca española “LAM”, de Iberia, por ser similar a la primera. Los jueces fallaron que “no existe riesgo de confusión entre las marcas”, entre “LAN” y “LAM”, aunque ambos se dirigen a un público hispanohablante.

El Tribunal resolvió que “son distintas marcas por sus diferencias gráficas y fonéticas y por su diferencia conceptual por lo que respecta al sector del público”. Además “mientras que para el sector del público que ni siquiera tiene conocimiento mínimo de español no existe ninguna diferencia o similitud conceptual entre las marcas en conflicto, el sector con conocimientos mínimos de español percibirá una diferencia entre Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo y Lan Airlines”. Sentenció que la aerolínea LAN se distingue por estas únicas tres letras y aparece siempre en mayúsculas y seguido de una estrella estilizada.

Lan Airlines, S.A., formuló oposición, con arreglo al artículo 42 del Reglamento nº 40/94 (actualmente, artículo 41 del Reglamento nº 207/2009), contra el registro de la marca solicitada para los servicios comprendidos en la clase 39 del Arreglo de Niza : "Transporte; embalaje y almacenaje de mercancías; organización de viajes". La oposición se basó en los siguientes derechos anteriores: Marca denominativa anterior LAN, objeto del registro comunitario nº 3350899 de 2004; y marca figurativa anterior, del registro comunitario nº 3694957, de 2005.

LAN puede todavía recurrir de casación, ante el Tribunal de la UE.

A, B, C – Y: On Biodiversity Access and Benefit-Sharing

Patricia Covarrubia February 08, 2011 No comments:

It has been reported by the IP watch, that four developing countries have already signed a recent international agreement -- The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits. The agreement was adopted on October 2010, and seeks to facilitate access to genetic resources.

Algeria, Brazil, Colombia, and Yemen appear to be keen to sign the protocol (open for signature until 1 February 2012) and having a quick look at it, it appears too mellow. The protocol is full of words such as ‘recognizing, acknowledging, and reaffirming’. However, the text has been considered by some as not quite there (can we say ‘immature’?). The critiques focus on the fact that the text is open to interpretation and ‘much left to national level implementation.’ This view can be observed in some of the Articles which state for example: ‘in accordance with domestic law’; ‘subject to domestic law’; ‘ as appropriate’; to name a few.

However, the protocol needs to be ratified by at least 50 parties and would enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth ratification. I guess we can start counting now – there are less than 360 days to see if the protocol will be (or not) ratified.

What is the fuss about?
The protocol is very much ‘what it says on the tin’ -- fair and equitable share. That said, it is for every party to interpret according to their domestic legislation and procedures. In general, the text is bringing into attention the following: when you have the ingredients to make a cake and do not know how to make one, along comes someone uses the ingredients and leave with the whole cake! This is pretty much what the Protocol is establishing, you cannot leave with the whole cake, and you need to recognise and acknowledge the party that gave you the ingredients.

Descriptive use of another's mark is okay, rules Argentine court

Jeremy February 06, 2011 No comments:

Last August, in Expobicentenario SA v Arte Gráfico Editorial Argentino SA (Case 3201/10), the Argentine Court of Appeals denied injunctive relief to prohibit use of the phrase 'Argentina 200 años' ("Argentina 200 years") by the defendant. Expobicentenario had earlier secured trade mark registration of the word mark ARGENTINA 200 AÑOS, for goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 41 of the Nice Classification. Media giant Arte Gráfico Editorial Argentino subsequently published a supplement of its Clarín newspaper to commemorate the 200th anniversary of Argentine independence using the expression 'Clarín Bicentenario 1810-2010', as well as 'Argentina 200 años'.

Refusing the injunction the Court of Appeals held that, according to the law, “use of a third party’s mark in a non-typical manner is not necessarily illegal”. Here, the phrase 'Argentina 200 años' was not used as a trade mark, but in a descriptive way. The presumption that freedom of expression should be limited when a phrase contains a trade mark must be rejected when the mark is not used in a distinctive way. Such use does not fall within the scope of protection of the trade mark.

Source: "Injunction denied as trademark used in descriptive manner", by Jorge Otamendi (G Breuer, Buenos Aires), World Trademark Review, 31 January 2011

A cheese solution: is this healthy for a FTA?

Patricia Covarrubia February 01, 2011 2 comments:

From Marques Class 46 blog I read that the Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano has submitted in Colombia an application for recognition of its Parmigiano Reggiano as an Appelation of Origin (AO).

Colombia being part of the Andean Community of Nation (formed by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru) operates a customs union similar to the EU and it boasts a common IP regime governed by Decision 486. Geographical Indication is found under Title XII and AO definition under Art 201, regulating though this subject.

Under the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) signed between the EU and Colombia and Peru, Parmiggiano Reggiano appears on the list (more than 200 products are listed – only 4 are from Colombia and Peru). Looking further the FTA, under title VII named Geographical Indications (GI), clarifies that GI of a Party to be protected by the other Party, shall only be subject to this Title if they are recognised and declared as such in the country of origin. This implies that the parties each accept that the other party’s domestic examinations are also sufficient for their domestic market. As we may know Parmiggiano Reggiano not only enjoys protection in its own country but in the whole European Union (also in those Members States that are parties to the Lisbon Agreement since this GI has been registered under this regime).

That said, here comes my questioning: why is the Consorzio looking for this further protection? There is the issue that though the FTA has been signed, it has not entered into force as yet -- is this a sign? I feel that this cheese does not smell right.

Moreover, will the other 228 EU products apply for this recognition? Or is just this stinky cheese that wants to have another slice of protection?

National IP Institutes: United we stand.

Patricia Covarrubia January 31, 2011 No comments:

The Brazilian Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI) informs that the national intellectual property of nine South American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname and Uruguay) will hold later this year, a pilot project for cooperation in patent examination.

This action is part of the project for regional cooperation on patents called Prosur. With joint efforts, the goal is to seek greater efficiency and quality of patent decisions.

According to the information the project will work as follows: “300 patent applications in the fields of biotechnology and mechanical engineering will be selected. The patent applications should have been presented in two or more countries (forming part of this project). Thus, examiners of the involved countries will exchange information regarding ‘search and examination’ relevant for the final decision.

In the future, the goal is to expand to other areas.

Is this true? The beer you drink says a lot about you

Patricia Covarrubia January 28, 2011 No comments:

A few months back I remember that our cousin blog the IPKat was running a competition: to provide the best explanation of the meaning of the new WIPO logo. At that time I thought of many trade marks –words, and logos, that do not say anything to us, or at least we do not know why the chosen word or logo. I guess this is a point of curiosity – however we must not forget that if the said mark is generic, customary and/or descriptive it cannot be registered.

Today I was reading the newspaper and I read the launch of two new beers in Mexico, namely: ‘salamandra’ and ‘purple hand beer’. The article pleased my curiosity because it actually explains why the chosen words for the two beers.

The beers are designated to be sold in gay bars and contain a mixture of ale and organic honey. The report continues, ‘purple hand’ takes its name following a 1969 protest against a California newspaper, after several homophobic comments. Those responsible for the news threw purple paint against the demonstrators, who in seeking to oppose the attack got their hands full of ink and placed on the walls of the building. The purple hand is seen as a defence of the rights and freedom of expression of the community.

On the other hand, ‘Salamandra’ takes its name from the animal that has the ability to change colours. According to the news, these two new beers are seen as an alternative and so seeking to establish a bond because of the identity they have.
Well, I am sure that with this explanation the marks are then suggestive of the targeting market (no the product) and capable of being registered.

Info here and here.

Ecuador: IP Infringers sue public prosecutor... for prosecuting them

Aurelio Lopez-Tarruella Martinez January 26, 2011 No comments:

Yeah, right! Maybe the title is quite strange because of my limitations with English, but that's more or less what is happening in Ecuador in a recent case that Alfonso Rivera (Tobar y Bustamante) has brought to the attention of the IP Tango.

IEPI (Ecuador Institute of Intellectual Property) has seized more than 110.000 counterfeiting products in a recent raid, and some stores were closed. ASECOPAC (an Ecuatorian Association of sellers of Audiovisual products) has submitted a complaint against IEPI because they consider that the raids are in violation of the National Plan for Good Living (sorry I'm translating it literally) and of Art. 325 of the Ecuatorian Constitutions that guarantees everyone's right to work.
The case is certainly more complex. But at first sight it seems really curious that such a complaint has been filed.
Let's see what happens. I'm sure our colleagues in Ecuador will keep us informed about it.

Chile: Jurisprudencia en materia de nulidad de registro de marcas

Rodrigo Ramirez Herrera @ramahr January 26, 2011 No comments:

En el marco de un juicio especial sobre nulidad de la transferencia del registro de la marca Picasso, para servicios de las clases 35, 37 y 39 del nomenclátor de Niza, se dictó sentencia de rechazo de recurso de casación en el fondo interpuesto por la parte demandante de nulidad, Indivisión Picasso, compuesta por los dueños de los derechos de propiedad intelectual de la obra del pintor Pablo Picasso, señores Paloma Ruíz-Picasso, Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Marina Ruíz Picasso, Bernard Ruíz-Picasso y Claude Ruíz-Picasso, en contra de la sentencia de segunda instancia, dictada por el Tribunal de Propiedad Industrial, que revocó la decisión de primer grado que daba lugar a la pretensión de nulidad.

La doctrina de la Corte Suprema expresa que la factura de venta, emitida por el martillero público a nombre del adjudicatario de una marca comercial en pública subasta, es título suficiente para su anotación al margen del registro a favor del nuevo titular.

La especialidad de la ley N° 19.039 sobre propiedad industrial, que contiene el régimen de marcas chileno, no abarca las transferencias forzadas de los derechos de propiedad industrial y, en consecuencia, resultan plenamente aplicables las normas generales sobre enajenación obligada de especies sujetas a un proceso de quiebra (como es el caso) que, en la situación de los bienes incorporales de naturaleza mueble, como ocurre con las marcas comerciales, se rigen por la Ley de Quiebras, actualmente incorporada al Código de Comercio, cuyo artículo 122, dispone que: "Las especies corporales muebles se venderán al martillo y los valores mobiliarios que tengan cotización bursátil, en remate en bolsa de valores", cuyo símil procesal se encuentra en el artículo 482 del Código de Procedimiento Civil, respecto de los bienes muebles embargados.

Con el rechazo de la casación, el registro de marca Nº 601576 del Inapi (renovación del registro Nº 365512) quedó a firme a nombre del legítimo adjudicatario, cuyo nombre social contiene un apellido homónimo al signo distintivo.

ideas, tech, experience --how to tie them?

Patricia Covarrubia January 24, 2011 No comments:

The Superintendent of Industry and Commerce (SIC) signed an agreement with the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office. With this agreement, the SIC seeks to strengthen its industrial property system technology. It is believed that institutional coordination will promote cooperation between the parties and so exchange views and experiences to strengthen technical assistance, training, and best practices in the industrial property field.

To the Superintendent Jose Miguel de la Calle said that "this collaboration between friends, further strengthen SIC as the authority responsible for ensuring the rights of Colombians, both consumers and companies." He continues, "we will continue seeking alliances with the best in their jurisdiction to provide all Colombians a peace of mind having an authority that works for them."

For more info here

Colombia and Madrid: the final Act?

Jeremy January 21, 2011 No comments:

Dancing in the streets: jubilant Colombian trade mark
lawyers and their clients celebrate the Senate vote

The 15 January 2011 issue of the INTA Bulletin (Vol. 66 No. 2), which INTA members can now enjoy on INTA's handsomely refurbished website, reports some good news for brand owners in "Colombian Senate Approves Bill 061/2010, Moving Closer to Madrid Accession".

It seems that last month a plenary session of the Colombian Senate approved Bill 061/2010, which calls for accession to the Madrid Protocol. This is a reintroduced version of an earlier bill which received support from INTA members.

For background see IP Tango posts here, here, here and here.

Some IPTango moves

* Listed as one of the "Best blogs on Intellectual and Industrial Property Law". The University of Alicante Intellectual Property & Information Technology Project (UAIPIT).

* One of the only two Latin American blog listed in the "Top 100 Intellectual Property Blogs". Feedspot, as of May 2021.

* Listed as one of the "Top 15 Blogs For An Intellectual Property (IP) Enthusiasts". Buzzfeed.com, January 2017.

* Listed as one of the "World's Best IP Blogs". BananaIP.com, December 2015.

* IPTango founder Professor Jeremy Phillips was listed as one of the Managing Intellectual Property magazine's "Fifty Most Influential People" of 2005, 2011, 2013, and 2014.

* Listed as one of the "Influential intellectual property blawgs". A Dictionary of Intellectual Property Law, Peter Groves, 2011.

* Listed as one of the "Communities of Blawgers". Los blogs jurídicos y la web 2.0. para la difusión y la enseñanza del derecho, Gonzalo Ramírez Cleves, 2010.