Month: May 2024

The renowned Lacoste brand initiated a lawsuit in Brazil towards the end of last year to prevent the sale of clothing resembling its iconic green crocodile logo, as reported by Lauro Jardim’s column in O Globo newspaper.

 

The lawsuit targeted Cartelo, a brand with a similar green crocodile symbol, along with Ecom Factory, the seller of these products. Shopee, an online marketplace, and Facebook, a social media platform, were also named as defendants for promoting Cartelo’s products.

 

Claiming significant harm to its Brazilian business, Lacoste alleged Cartelo’s actions amounted to counterfeiting and unfair competition. In the lawsuit, Lacoste demanded Ecom Factory cease selling Cartelo products and sought compensation of R$50,000. The brand also urged the court to compel Shopee and Facebook to remove ads featuring Cartelo’s items.

 

 

The São Paulo court sided with Lacoste, ordering Ecom to halt the sale of Cartelo’s items and instructing Shopee and Facebook to remove related advertisements.

 

While Shopee complied with the ruling but planned to appeal, Facebook also appealed citing an error in the court’s decision. Ecom Factory claimed it was merely a reseller and not responsible for Cartelo’s brand.

 

—

 

Author: Enzo Toyoda Coppola, Junior Associate and Cesar Peduti Filho, Managing Partner of Peduti Advogados.

Source: Manchete

 

—

 

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.

These days, we’re coming across new technologies capable of reading our brain waves while we sleep, meditate and even when we use dating apps.

 

We can’t disagree that, although it’s innovative, our biological and neural data is extremely sensitive, as it demonstrates everything we are, feel and think.  

 

For these reasons, the state of Colorado, in the United States, has introduced a new bill to make the protection of this data more extensive, with the aim of protecting consumers, who may suffer from the lack of regulation by major companies.

 

The new law will serve as an extension to the Colorado Privacy Act, making companies face even stricter regulations on how they can handle this data. 

 

As well as being the first law to be passed in the United States for this purpose, it is hoped that it will serve as an example for other states to do the same, although California and Minnesota are moving in a similar direction.

 

In Brazil, measures are already being taken to protect neural data. 

 

 

Through Bill 522/22 the aim is to regulate, through insertions in the General Personal Data Protection Law (LGPD), information obtained by central nervous system activities, whether by invasive or non-invasive technology, in order to protect mental privacy and personal autonomy.  

 

According to the bill, the processing of neural data will only take place when the data subject consents, for specific purposes, even in clinical circumstances.

 

We can agree that neural data is the most personal when it comes to the privacy of each individual. 

 

It is extremely necessary to have a regulation that aims to protect individuals in their privacy, so that their data is not misused by technology companies. 

 

In this way, the new bills that are emerging show great progress in the protection of sensitive personal information.

—

 

Authors: Daniela Russo, Advogada Júnior and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Fontes: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/science/colorado-brain-data-privacy.html?utm_source=the_news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=23-04-2024 

—

 

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

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

In a recent decision, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) addressed in Special Appeal No. 1.610.728 a crucial issue concerning intellectual property rights, particularly in the context of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. The case revolved around the Roundup Ready soybean, a genetically modified crop, and its implications for patent protection and agricultural practices.

 

The central question was whether soybean producers could freely use, sell, or exchange the seeds of Roundup Ready soybeans without infringing upon the intellectual property rights of the patent holders. STJ further examined if such acts would constitute a violation of patent rights or if they fell within permissible acts due to exhaustion of rights.

 

The analysis of the case began with an examination of the provisions of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9.279/96) regarding the possibility of patenting of transgenic microorganisms to provide temporary exclusivity to inventors. The legal framework established by the mentioned law aligns with international standards such as TRIPS and upholds the constitutional duty to protect intellectual property rights.

 

Another highlight of the decision was the distinction between patents and plant breeders’ rights. STJ understood that the scope of protection of the mentioned rights are materially difference, since patents safeguard the inventive process or the genetically modified material itself, while plant breeders’ rights pertain to the reproductive material of the entire plant. The court further concluded that there is no inherent conflict between these legal regimes; rather, and that they operate as complementary systems.

 

 

Furthermore, STJ clarified that while the principle of exhaustion typically applies to patented products, there is an explicit exception for living organisms intended for commercial propagation. This exception ensures that the exhaustion principle does not apply to genetically modified materials used for reproduction, as they do not fall under the category of non-reproducible living matter.

 

Based on these considerations, STJ ruled that the limitations on intellectual property rights outlined in the Brazilian Plant Variety Protection Law (Law 9.456/97) are not applicable to holders of patents related to transgenic products whose technology is present in the reproductive material of plant varieties.

 

In conclusion, this landmark decision provides clarity on the intersection of intellectual property rights and agricultural biotechnology, establishing important precedents for future cases in Brazil’s legal landscape. It reaffirms the importance of striking a balance between innovation incentives and public interest in promoting agricultural development while respecting intellectual property rights.

 

—

 

Author: Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: Segunda Seção aplica Lei de Propriedade Industrial e reconhece proteção à soja transgênica da Monsanto (https://www.stj.jus.br/sites/portalp/Paginas/Comunicacao/Noticias-antigas/2019/Segunda-Secao-aplica-Lei-de-Propriedade-Industrial-e-reconhece-protecao-a-soja-transgenica-da-Monsanto.aspx)

 

—

 

The Brazilian Data Protection Authority (“ANPD”) defines the regulatory sandbox as “a collaborative experimentation between the regulator, the regulated entity and other interested parties. The objective is to test regulatory innovations in a controlled space, through a structured methodology. The expression refers to an environment where structures are built that are easily remodeled or reconstituted, due to the malleable material of which they are composed.”

 

In this way, it can be understood that the regulatory sandbox is a tool that has today demonstrated to be the most likely to reduce information asymmetry between all agents involved.

 

The ANPD regulatory sandbox proposal is:

• To reconcile the protection of fundamental rights with the continuity of innovation.
• To allow analysis of new tools and their behavior in different regulatory scenarios.
• To identify gaps in relation to effectiveness and build regulation that adapts to new scenarios.

 

 

To this end, last year the ANPD opened a consultation with society on the regulatory sandbox for artificial intelligence and personal data protection in Brazil, so that Brazilians and foreigners were able to collaborate. Contributions were accepted from both the public and private sectors.

 

Furthermore, it is essential to highlight the participation of Lucas dos Anjos, an ANPD servant, in an important event held at the beginning of March in Paris. This event was the OECD-African Union Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence. During the event, Lucas represented the Authority on the panel “Implementing the OECD Principles: Designing and Managing a National AI Strategy”.

 

During the dialogue, the ongoing project at ANPD on the Regulatory Sandbox was introduced, providing the opportunity for clarifications on this initiative, as well as the significant public participation in the development of the project being emphasized, indicating that around 70 contributions were received regarding to public consultation. Therefore, Brazil’s prominence in this initiative is notable, and in how it aligns and complements similar policy efforts in other countries.

 

—

 

Author: Caroline Muniz, Attorney at Law at Peduti Advogados.

Source: O sandbox regulatório (https://www.gov.br/anpd/pt-br/sandbox/o-sandbox-regulatorio); Aberta consulta à sociedade sobre sandbox regulatório de inteligência artificial e proteção de dados pessoais no Brasil  (https://www.gov.br/anpd/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/aberta-consulta-a-sociedade-sobre-sandbox-regulatorio-de-inteligencia-artificial-e-protecao-de-dados-pessoais-no-brasil); Sandbox Regulatório é apresentado em evento na OCDE, em Paris (https://www.gov.br/anpd/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/servidor-da-anpd-participa-de-evento-da-ocde-em-paris). 

 

—

 

“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.”