The creation of repositories as way to ensure the protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions

The creation of repositories as way to ensure the protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions

Traditional Cultural Expressions are formed by the set of creations of the people from certain region. Also known as Folklore Expressions, such creations represent a large part of the intangible heritage of a country, playing a very important role in the knowledge of local culture and history.

The Traditional Cultural Expressions embraces the creations of art, dance, symbols, crafts, architecture, among others, and can be fundamental for getting to know a certain people and even understand their knowledge of medicine and science. 

Although they are clearly creations of the spirit, and therefore, can be considered works of art, as provided in the “caput” of Article 7 of the Brazilian Copyright Law (Law No. 9.610/98), Traditional Cultural Expressions cannot be protected by the Copyright institute, since they lack a necessary condition: the determination of who effectively was the author of the work.

Since these are folkloric and cultural creations, which go through generations and generations, it is impossible to credit the authorship of a Traditional Cultural Expression to a single person, since such immaterial property knowledge belongs to a whole collectivity. Thus, there is no intellectual property right that confers ownership and exclusive control over the exploitation of these creations.

The Federal Constitution, in its articles 215 and 216, guarantees the exercise of cultural rights and classifies as Brazilian cultural heritage all the assets that identify our society. Moreover, the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and the 2005 Convention On The Protection And Promotion Of The Diversity Of Cultural Expressions both published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization – UNESCO reinforce that the  cultural diversity is essential, and determine that these forms of expression must be preserved, emphasizing the importance of the participation of the communities in the management and protection of these assets.

 

The creation of repositories as way to ensure the protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions

 

However, the protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions ends up being very broad and sometimes abstract, which does not mean that they can be freely exploited by the commercial industry, precisely because they are inalienable. For this reason the inclusion of these creations as mere Intellectual Property asset such as trademarks, patents, and copyrights does not provide the necessary protection, since such protection would end up transforming important culture assets into commodities.

The establishment of repositories to archive the spirit creations of native people turns out to be a good option to ensure the minimum protection to Traditional Cultural Expressions, since such repositories store information about which tribe is responsible for the creation of that cultural expression and keep the history behind that knowledge preserved.

Based on this example, the Insikiran Institute of Indigenous Higher Education, which is part of the structure of the Federal University of Roraima-UFRR recently opened a digital repository for indigenous scientific and ethnocultural productions. According to the UFRR “initiative will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, organize, publicize and disseminate the scientific and ethnocultural knowledge of the indigenous community of Roraima.”

This initiative demonstrates the participation of the community and the Goverment for the management and protection of the Brazilian intangible heritage, as determined by the Federal Constitution and the UNESCO Conventions, guaranteeing the support to the people who hold these rights.

Author: Joana Mendes Maneschy, at Peduti Advogados.

Source: UFRR inaugura repositório digital para produções científicas e etnoculturais indígenas; WIPO. Traditional Cultural Expressions (Folklore); BRASIL. Constituição (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, DF: Senado Federal: Centro Gráfico, 1988; CONVENÇÃO PARA A SALVAGUARDA DO PATRIMÔNIO CULTURAL IMATERIAL – 03 de novembro de 2003 – PARIS; CONVENÇÃO SOBRE A PROTEÇÃO E PROMOÇÃO DA DIVERSIDADE DAS EXPRESSÕES CULTURAIS – 21 de outubro de 2005 – Texto oficial ratificado pelo Brasil por meio do Decreto Legislativo 485/2006

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

TM exclusive rights of use: exceptions according to Brazillian law

TM exclusive rights of use: exceptions according to Brazillian law

As we know, the biggest advantage to obtain a trademark is the exclusive right of its use to identify services and/or goods as spcified by the respective register. Even thought, it isn’t an absolut right and may be flexibilized depending of some specifique situations previowsly indicated in brazillian law.
Some of them are preserved by article 132 of brazillian industrial property law, which says:

 

1 – Distribution Agreements

A trademark owner won’t have the right to prevent distributor to use it’s trademarks, since this use is related to the promotion and/or sales of trademark owner goods itself.

 

2 – Free Circulation of Goods

A trademark owner won’t have the right to prevent the free offer of a product placed on the internal market, by itself or by others with its consent, except as provided in cases of abuse of rights.

 

TM exclusive rights of use: exceptions according to Brazillian law

 

3 – Accessories Manufacturer

A trademark owner won’t have the right to prevent accessories manufacturer of its goods, to use the trademark to identify the destination of this manufactered accessories.

 

4 – Non Commercial Use

A trademark owner won’t have the right to prevent the citation of its trademark in speech, scientific or literary work or any other publication, provided that it has no commercial connotation and without prejudice to its distinctive character.

Author: Lorena Garrido Borges, Senior Associate at Peduti Advogados.

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

The recognition of mastic honey from the north of Minas Gerais as a Geographical Indication Registration

The recognition of mastic honey from the north of Minas Gerais as a Geographical Indication Registration

The Geographical Indication (G.I) registration is a collective tool developed for the valorization of traditional products from a certain region, with the main function of adding value to the product and protecting the producing region. In Brazil, this subject was introduced on the occasion of the enactment of the Industrial Property Law No. 9,279/96.

In Brazil there are two types of Geographical Indication, the indication of origin and the denomination of origin. In both modalities, protection will fall on the “geographical name”, constituted both by the official name and by the traditional or usual name of a determinable geographical area. The legislation in force does not establish a period of validity for Geographical Indications, so that the period for the use of the right is the same as the existence of the recognized product or service, within the peculiarities of the Indications of Origin and the Denominations of Origin.

In this sense, it is very important to highlight that the Brazilian PTO recognized the registration of a geographical indication of honey from the mastic tree in the North of Minas Gerais. Now, the region is now identified as a Denomination of Origin for the product, which, in practice, represents the geographical indication of the particular environmental and geographical conditions of soil and climate for the production of honey with its own characteristics. This was the first recognition approved by the Brazilian PTO in 2022, published in the Official Gazette No. 2665.

 

The recognition of mastic honey from the north of Minas Gerais as a Geographical Indication Registration

 

As described, the denomination of origin establishes an area of 64 municipalities with different soil and climate conditions, as well as vegetation and insect producers. The presence of aroeira-do-sertão stands out and its interspecific relationships, in addition to the technique used by regional beekeepers. The Brazilian PTO decision is seen as a decisive milestone in the scientific chain of honey in the North of Minas Gerais, reaching one of the most representative indicators for the production of excellence and certification for the international market.

In view of the above scenario, what would be the advantage of a Denomination of origin in Brazil?

For a given product to obtain recognition as a Denomination of Origin, it must take into account the unique characteristics of the location, including the natural and human factors that make it different. In this way, the protagonism belongs to the producer, as he has the intellectual property of the way of doing it. Thus, the registration of Geographical Indication of Agricultural products, in fact, can bring recognition by the market and by consumers.

In this way, producers who follow the rules of the geographical indication from North of Minas Gerais can choose to also use the Brazilian Seal of the Denomination of Origin on the label of their products, together with the name of the G.I. and consequently, from this measure, it is expected that the valorization and even the international promotion of products, adding value and generating income, in addition to other benefits for the specific region, which ends up becoming a highlight and a market reference.

Author: Bruno Arminio, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Manual de Marcas; INPI reconhece o registro de indicação geográfica do mel de aroeira do Norte de Minas; Mel de Aroeira do Norte de Minas recebe selo de Indicação Geográfica

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

Brazil grants its first denomination of origin for Erva-Mate

The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) recently published the recognition of “Erva-Mate do Planalto Norte Catarinense” as the newest Denomination of Origin (DO) in Brazil. This Denomination of origin includes an area of 20 municipalities in the State of Santa Catarina.

“Erva-mate” is a type of herb commonly consumed in the south of Brazil and the region in the North of the Santa Catarina State is well known for its production. The herb from this region differentiates itself by its higher concentration of caffeine, higher glow, deeper green color and higher level of sweetness, when compared to the herbs produced in the states of Paraná and Rio Grande do Sul.

 

 

These characteristics are due to the location that combines the lowest insolation levels in the State, with the shadow made by the Araucária Forest, which maintains a balance of heat and humidity in the soil and air that gives its special characteristics to the herb.

Regarding the human factors, the harvest, trituration and preparation of the “erva-mate” are a result of the influence of several different people who inhabited the region throughout the centuries, dating from the original Indians, to the caboclos and tropeiros.

This denomination of origin elevates the number of geographical indications registered in the BPTO to 99, being 31 denomination of origin and 68 indication of origin. 

Author: Carla Pinheiro Beisiegel, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Planalto Norte Catarinense torna-se a primeira Denominação de Origem para erva-mate

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”
“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

The Rio de Janeiro State Court of Justice reinstated an injunction against Netflix, requiring the company to stop using video compression technology

The Rio de Janeiro State Court of Justice reinstated an injunction against Netflix, requiring the company to stop using video compression technology

The Rio de Janeiro State Court of Justice (TJ-RJ) re-established the injunction that determines that Netflix discontinue the use of the compression technology patented by the North American DivX. The deadline for the measure to be respected was until June 24, 2022. If the streaming platform does not respect it, a daily fine of R$ 50.000,00 will be charged. 

The technology patented by DivX allows the compression of videos in high definition, and is used to reproduce them with greater speed, without compromising the image quality. This technology allows the availability of videos in Ultra HD and 4K format, with higher definition images.

Last year, the court authorized an interim decision for Netflix to stop using the disputed resource; however, the company appealed, and offered a guarantee of R$ 10.000.000,00 while the process was still running. At the time, the offer was accepted and the injunction temporarily overturned. Returning to the present, the restoration was decided by the judges of the 24th Civil Chamber of the Rio de Janeiro State Court Of Jusitce, with 2 (two) votes in favor and 1 (one) against.

 

The Rio de Janeiro State Court of Justice reinstated an injunction against Netflix, requiring the company to stop using video compression technology

 

According to DivX, NETFLIX violates a patent duly protected by the Brazilian PTO since 2018, which was also recognized in the United States and China, for the simple fact of making content available using a third-party resource without a license required.

In its defense, Netflix claimed that it does not use the technology of the North American company. However, at the same time, he claims that abandoning the use of DivX’s compression method “would bring enormous losses”. The communication failure was pointed out by the judges. Subsequently, they confirmed that the arguments of the platform representatives are “described in a grammatical style that is sometimes ambiguous”.

In addition to the conflicting defense arguments, five technical opinions carried out by professors from research centers of excellence in Brazil, PUC-Rio, UFRJ, UERJ, UFF and USP, demonstrated the use of the patented compression technology.

Since the patent in reference is not only protected in Brazil, the dispute in question is taking place simultaneously in the United States and China.

Author: Bruno Arminio, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Netflix is ​​forced to stop using video compression technology

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

The arrival of 5G in Brazil and its impact on personal data protection

5G in Brazil

With the recent arrival of 5G in Brazil, much has been said about the perspectives for improvements brought by this technology. As the world moves towards faster connections, however, its impact on personal data protection must be considered.

The capital, Brasília, was the first city in the country to receive 5G and the forecast to arrive in all cities in Brazil is only at the end of 2029. It is unquestionable that it is a process of changes, with some limitations, such as the fact that the technology can only be used in the areas where it was released or by specific devices that can receive it.

Despite some obstacles to the complete adaptation of this technology in Brazil, there are countless benefits that can be brought by it, such as: faster and more stable connection; advances in telemedicine and technologies involving self-driving cars; greater interactions in the metaverse; improvement in response time between the origin and destination of information; among others.

 

5G in Brazil

 

The advantages exposed above, however, will directly relate to the way people handle and expose their personal data. The fact is that there will be greater data collection, as well as an expansion of services that will make use of facial recognition and artificial intelligence in general. It is therefore essential to pay greater attention to the Brazilian General Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 13.709/2018), also called “LGPD”.

The LGPD is a recent law, with its entry into force on September 18, 2020, and applies in cases where there is (i) the processing of personal data in Brazil; (ii) offering or providing goods or services to individuals located in Brazil; or (iii) personal data collected in Brazil.

Thus, even though the data protection culture in Brazil is in the dissemination phase, it is extremely important that companies comply with the law, in order to follow all this technological progress, to demonstrate transparency with their data subjects, and also to avoid any type of sanction that may be imposed by the Brazilian National Data Protection Authority (“ANPD”).

For more information on how to keep your company in compliance with the LGPD, contact Peduti Advogados.

Author: Caroline Muniz, Junior Associate at Peduti Advogados.

Source: 5G chega ao Brasil nesta quarta; guia explica o que vai mudar com a nova tecnologia

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

Main differences between an invention patent and an utility model by Brazilian law

In Brazilian Law of Intellectual Property (Law nº 9.269/1996), there are two types of invention: the Invention Patent and the utility model. In this article, we will cover the main aspects of each protection right, as well as the requirements needed to file and achieve these registers.

The article 8 of the Intellectual Property Brazilian law handles the requisites of the Invention Patent, while its article X handles the demands needed in the Utility Model process:

Article 8 – To be patentable an invention must meet the requirements of novelty, inventive activity and industrial application

Article 9 – An object of practical use, or part thereof, is patentable as a utility model, when it is susceptible of industrial application, presents a new shape or arrangement and involves an inventive act that results in a functional improvement in its use or manufacture

That way, for an invention to fulfill the “novelty” requirement, it can’t be envolved by the state of art, which, in turn, correspond to all that was accessible to the public before the date of filing of a patent application.

The “industrial application” demand means that the functionality object of the application needs to be susceptible to production and use by any kind of industry.

The last requisite is what tells both protection rights apart. The Invention Patent requires Inventive Activity, while the Utility Model requires only an Inventive Act.

By Inventive Activity we understand that the functionality, beyond being new, needs to not derive in an evident or obvious manner from the state of the art, by the eye of a person skilled in the art. If not, any professional could have come up with said funcitonality, which consequently would not consist in an actual invention.

 

 

The Inventive Act, on the other hand, is a concept analogous to Inventive Activity.

Said object of practical use envolves Invetive Act when, for a person skilled in the art, it does not derive in a common or usual manner from the state of the art.

Evidently, the difference between both concepts is subtle. We can consider that the Utility Model is an improvement inside the scope of a previous Invention Patent, in a way that it is restricted to the form or disposition of an object, while a new Invention Patent would consist in a more wide-ranging functionality.

To help us have a better understanding of this concept, the Law 9.269/1996 (IP Law), in its article 10, lists examples of what cannot be considered as Utility Models:

Article 10 – The following are not considered to be inventions or utility models:

I – discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

II – purely abstract concepts;

III – schemes, plans, principles or methods of a commercial, accounting, financial, educational, publishing, lottery or fiscal nature;

IV – literary, architectural, artistic and scientific works or any aesthetic creation;

V – computer programmes per se;

VI – the presentation of information;

VII – rules of games;

VIII – operating or surgical techniques and therapeutic or diagnostic methods, for use on the human or animal body; and

IX – natural living beings, in whole or in part, and biological material, including the genome or germ plasm of any natural living being, when found in nature or isolated therefrom, and natural biological processes. 

Its also important to consider that, in consequence of the said discrepancy between the institute’s demands, they have a different terms. A Patent of invention will have a term of 20 (twenty) years and a utility model patent a term of 15 (fifteen) years, counted from the filing date.

That way, having a better view of these two concepts, the inventor will be ale to register its invention in Brazil, without having any delays or complicstions.

Author: Enzo Toyoda Coppola, Junior Associate at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Lei de Propriedade Industrial (Lei nº 9.279/96)

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

STJ decides that the term of validity of a patent granted by the mailbox system is 20 years

STJ decides that the term of validity of a patent granted by the mailbox system is 20 years

In a recent judgment, the Second Section of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), in terms of repetitive resources, defined that the term of validity of a patent granted by the mailbox system is 20 years.

According to the opinion of Minister Nancy Andrighi, who presented the winning thesis in the repetitive trial, the term provided for in the sole paragraph of article 40 of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), do not apply to patents deposited in the manner stipulated by article 229, sole paragraph, of the said law.

 

 

In a certain part of the vote, the rapporteur stated:

In the case of patents exceptionally deposited by the mailbox system, the LPI, in its final and transitory provisions (article 229, sole paragraph), established an express rule ensuring protection limited only to a period of 20 years (or 15, for utility models) counted from the day of deposit (as stipulated by the aforementioned article 40, caput)”

The decision will reflect on the reduction of the patent’s right time.

Author: Sheila de Souza Rodrigues, Senior Associate at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Prazo de vigência de patentes mailbox é de 20 anos contados da data do depósito do pedido pelo interessado

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

The thesis defended by The Union General Advocacy’s (AGU) prevailed in the Court that the term of validity of “mailbox” patents is limited to 20 years, under penalty of damages to the consumer

The thesis defended by The Union General Advocacy's (AGU) prevailed in the Court that the term of validity of "mailbox" patents is limited to 20 years, under penalty of damages to the consumer

The Union General Advocacy’s (AGU) obtained, in the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), a decision that prevents certain medicines and agrochemical products from remaining unduly protected by patents for a period longer than that established by law.

The action took place in the case of a Special Appeal filed by an Irish university against a judgment handed down by the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region (TRF2), within the scope of an incident of resolution of repetitive demands filed by it. The appellant sought to make applicable the then-current sole paragraph of art. 40 of the Industrial Property Law (LPI) – which provided for additional protection for inventions for another ten years, from the administrative granting of the patent privilege – to the so-called “mailbox” patentes.

 

The thesis defended by The Union General Advocacy's (AGU) prevailed in the Court that the term of validity of "mailbox" patents is limited to 20 years, under penalty of damages to the consumer

 

This patent it refers to pharmaceutical and chemical products for agriculture filled at the Brazilian PTO (INPI) between January 1, 1995 and May 14, 1997, having remained in the “mail box”, awaiting the start of validity of the LPI (Law no. 9.279/96).

However, in the judicial representation of the Brazilian PTO, the AGU argued that the legal text is clear in providing, in its art. 229, sole paragraph, that, for “mailbox” patents, only a period of 20 years from the filing applies, i.e., the moment from which the applicant files an application for obtaining the rights to a creation liable to industrial production.

At the end of the judgment, the 2nd Section of the STJ signed the following thesis: “The initial milestone and the term provided for in the sole paragraph of art. 40 of the LPI are not applicable to patents deposited in the manner stipulated by art. 229, sole paragraph, of the same law (mailbox patents)”.

According to Federal Prosecutor Antonio Cavaliere Gomes, Litigation coordinator of the Specialized Federal Prosecutor’s Office with the Brazilian PTO, the respective decision: “Generates legal certainty for the Brazilian PTO´s performance and, in addition, prevents any important medicines and agrochemicals from remaining unduly protected.” by patents, which would generate a monopoly and consequent increase in their prices, without legal support, harming the public interest”.

Author: Bruno Arminio, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Union General Advocacy’s avoids the undue extension of patents on medicines and agrochemicals in the Superior Court of Justice

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

It is possible to claim incidental patent nullity as a matter of defense

It is possible to claim incidental patent nullity as a matter of defense

According to Article 56 of Law No. 9.279/96 (Industrial Property Law), “a nullity action can be filed at any time during the term of a patent by BPTO or by any legitimately interested party. § 1 – Nullity of a patent may be argued, at any time, as matter for defence”.

Despite the clarity of the law, the country’s jurisprudence oscillates in recognizing the possibility of the defendant to argue the nullity of a patent as a matter of defense, within the scope of the State Court, when suffering an infringement action.

This is because, as provided for in Article 57 of the Industrial Property Law, “nullity actions will be adjudged in the forum of the Federal Courts, and INPI, when not plaintiff, will participate in the action”.

And, therefore, the discussion could not take place at the state level. In this sense, we highlight REsp No. 1,281,448/SP, reported by Justice Nancy Andrighi, of the Third Panel of the Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ), judged on 09/08/2014.

 

It is possible to claim incidental patent nullity as a matter of defense

 

However, on 10/29/2020, the STJ, in the records of REsp nº 1.843.507/SP, reported by Minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, recognized “the possibility of claiming the nullity of patents and industrial designs as a matter defense in infringement actions, within the competence of the State Court, exempting, in these cases, the participation of the INPI”, whose decision will have effects only between the parties.

In a judgment of 06.30.2017, in the records of REsp 1,522,339/PR, Minister Luis Felipe Salomão had already pointed out the effects granted regarding the nullity action that is being processed before the Federal Court, which are erga omnes; and the effects granted regarding the incidental declaration of nullity before the State Court, as a matter of defense, these being inter partes.

Following this jurisprudential understanding, on 03.03.2021, the 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro (TJ-RJ), in the judgment of Interlocutory Appeal No. 0068520-12.2020.8.19.0000, reported by Des. Wagner Cinelli, recognized the possibility of the defendant raising the nullity of the patent as a matter of defense in an infringement action.

These judgments reflect an advance of the judiciary in interpreting issues inherent to Industrial Property.

 

Author: Thaís de Kássia Rodrigues Almeida Penteado, Senior Associate & Head of Litigation at Peduti Advogados.

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”