The claim to collect compensation for non-compliance with the copyright assignment agreement observes the general rule of limitation of ten Years in Brazil

The claim to collect compensation for non-compliance with the copyright assignment agreement observes the general rule of limitation of ten Years in Brazil

At the beginning of 2022, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the special appeal filed by the country singer Gusttavo Lima, defendant in the lawsuit moved by the composer André Luiz Gonçalves and understood that the claim to collect compensation for non-fulfiment with the copyright assignment agreement observes the general rule of limitation of ten years, as provided for in article 205 of the Brazilian Civil Code.

In the lawsuit in reference, the composer asks for a declaration of nullity of the legal transaction signed with the singer for the copyright assignment (co-authorship), in addition to compensation for moral and material damages.

 

The claim to collect compensation for non-compliance with the copyright assignment agreement observes the general rule of limitation of ten Years in Brazil

 

André Luiz claims that he wrote the song “Fora do Comum” alone and that he did not receive payments in relation to her rights, on the other hand, the country singer argues that the composition was made by the two and that the profit was divided in half between them.

The song was released in 2011, and Andre Luiz lawsuit was only filed in 2016. In the first instance, the statute of limitations was recognized by the application of the three-year period provided for in article 206, paragraph 3, item V, of the Brazilian Civil Code , which refers to non-fulfilment tort.

The Goiás Court of Justice overturned the decision and removed the statute of limitations, considering that the process deals with a contractual relationship between the composer and the singer. Thus, Minister Moura Ribeiro maintained the conclusions of the judgment, establishing the understanding that, in claims related to contractual liability, the statute of limitations provided for in article 205 of the Civil Code, with a period of ten years, applies.

Author: Bruno Arminio, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Compensation for offense of the copyright assingment in Brazil expires in ten Years

Direito moral do autor é imprescritível, mas pedido de indenização deve ser ajuizado em três anos

“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.”

Brazilian Supreme Court will decide whether Apple can continue to use the iPhone brand in Brazil

Brazilian Supreme Court will decide whether Apple can continue to use the iPhone brand in Brazil

The Supreme Federal Court (STF) decided that the dispute over the use of the “IPHONE” brand in Brazil has a constitutional character and recognized the existence of general repercussions.

The General Repercussion is a procedural instrument inserted in the Federal Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988.

The matter will be subject to the judgment of ARE No. 1.266.095, filed by IGB ELETRONICA S.A. The applicant wants to seek the judgment which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence.

IGB ELETRONICA S.A maintains that the judgment under appeal violates the right to property and the principle of free competition. It states that it would have fulfilled the legal requirements to register the trademark and that, when the exclusive use of the term “IPHONE” was subtracted, there was a direct violation of art. 5, XXIX, of the Federal Constitution, according to which it provides:

“Article 5. All persons are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever, Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country being ensured of inviolability of the right to life, to liberty, to equality, to security and to property, on the following terms:

(…)

XXIX – the law shall ensure the authors of industrial inventions of a temporary privilege for their use, as well as protection of industrial creations, property of trademarks, names of companies and other distinctive signs, viewing the social interest and the technological and economic development of the country”

In 2018, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that the Brazilian company did not have exclusivity over the term IPHONE in Brazil, which resulted in the filing of a Supreme appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.

 

Brazilian Supreme Court will decide whether Apple can continue to use the iPhone brand in Brazil

 

Understand the case

This is a dispute that started in 2012, when IGB ELETRÔNICA (formerly called GRADIENTE) launched Android devices under the “IPHONE” brand and claimed to have rights to the name.

This is because the National Institute of Intellectual Property (INPI) granted the Brazilian company the G GRADIENTE IPHONE registration to identify cell phones – valid throughout in the territory of Brazil.

As a result, Apple Inc. filed a lawsuit against IGB Eletrônica S/A and the National Institute of Industrial Property – INPI, seeking the partial nullity of registration holding that the name “IPHONE” was already widely associated with it and could mislead consumers.

In the first instance, the lawsuit was upheld to declare the partial nullity of the trademark registration.

The INPI and Apple appealed to the to the Court of Second Instance (Federal Court of Appeal for the 2nd Region – TRF2). However, the Court did not reform the sentence.

Defendants filed a Special Appeal against this decision. In the judgment of Special Appeal number 1.688.243 – RJ, The Superior Court of Justice – STJ, the highest Brazilian court for standardizing the interpretation of federal law all over the country – by majority vote, confirmed the understanding of the Federal Court of Appeal for the 2nd Region and concluded that the isolated use of the term “iPhone” by any other company (other than Apple), to designate cell phones may have harmful consequences that the Industrial Property Law does not allow.

The development for the STF to judge the lawsuit between Apple and IGB Eletrônica S.A took place after both companies failed to reach an agreement in hearings on the true owner of the name “iPhone”.

Therefore, the dispute is heading towards its conclusion.

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

Source: STF julgará se a marca ‘iphone’ no Brasil deve ser exclusividade da Gradiente (STF will judge whether the ‘iphone’ brand in Brazil should be exclusive to Gradiente)

“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.”

Registration Certificates for Madrid Protocol trademark applications are now available in the Brazilian PTO

Registration Certificates for Madrid Protocol trademark applications are now available in the Brazilian PTO

The Brazilian Industrial Property Office (BPTO) recently published the availability of registration certificates for trademark applications filed in Brazil using the Madrid Protocol.

The certificates will be available in weekly batches published on the same date of the publication of the BPTO Official Gazette. The issuance of the certificates will follow a chronological order based on the date of the granting of the trademark registration.

 

Registration Certificates for Madrid Protocol trademark applications are now available in the Brazilian PTO

 

After the BPTO issues all the pending registration certificates for applications made using the Madrid Protocol, these applications will follow the regular BPTO rule for issuance of trademarks certificates, that is, sixty days after the publication of the granting of the trademark.

The first certificates were made available on march 22, 2022. 

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

Source: INPI disponibiliza certificados de registro das designações de Madri

“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 difference between moral rights and copyrights in the Brazilian Legislation about authors of musical creations

Peduti - The difference between moral rights and copyrights in the Brazilian Legislation about authors of musical creations

The Brazilian legislation protects the creators’ rights as creations of the spirit, expressed by any means, as provided in Article 7 of the Law 9610/98. Differently from what happens in other countries, such as the United States, where there is the copyright institute, which is the legal protection that the author of a work has exclusively in relation to printing, reproduction or sale, the Brazilian Copyright Law is wider about the personal protection of the one who created the work. As determined by the professor Eliane Y. Abrão, the “author’s rights are a set of moral and patrimonial prerogatives, which interpenetrate when a literary, artistic and/or scientific work becomes publicly available”.

Thus, differently from Copyright, the Brazilian Author’s right has a double nature: moral rights of the author and property rights of the author. 

The property rights are those related to the economic exploitation of the work, like the Copyright concept. The holder of the property right (which is not necessarily the one who created the work) may exploit it and receive the pecuniary fruits arising from this exploitation.

Moral rights, on the other hand, are linked to the person of the Author and link his name to his creation. Such rights, according to Article 24 of the Brazilian Law are considered personal and independent of any registration. Moreover, the moral rights are unrenounceable, inalienable, unseizable and imprescriptible. They are eternal and will always bind the creator to his creation.

The moral rights of the author consist, for example (i) the right to preserve his work as unpublished; (ii) to withdraw it from circulation, (ii) the right to claim authorship (known as paternity right), (iv) the right to care for the integrity or reputation of his work, among others.

 

Peduti - The difference between moral rights and copyrights in the Brazilian Legislation about authors of musical creations

 

Based on these moral rights, the Brazilian singer and composer João Gilberto, responsible for the creation of great Bossa Nova hits such as “Chega de Saudade”, filed a lawsuit against EMI, the record company that owns the Copyrights to the work. In the lawsuit, João Gilberto claims the ownership of the tapes of his first records, which were in the possession of the record company. To support such request the Plaintiff claimed the moral right to ensure the integrity of his work.

However, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) understood that the possession of original recordings of a work are not within the scope of the author’s moral right. In addition, the STJ held that the record company, by having a valid contract with the artist, had the property right over the works, thus being the owner of the original tapes. 

To support their decision, the magistrates argued that the tapes are “the physical support of the immaterial work created by João Gilberto. Therefore, they are phonograms that can be assigned by the author, according to article 49, item V, of the Copyright Law.”

Thus, the court’s understanding clarifies that the physical form of a work guarantees the possibility of exploitation, thus, it is considered as a Copyright, which belongs to the artist’s record company. 

Such decision is important to exemplify the understanding of higher courts about the limits of the property and moral rights of the author since the moral rights are more subjective and not necessarily concern the physical form of the work, especially the musical work, which does not need its original physical form (in this case, the first recording tape) for its integrity to be guaranteed.

Author: Joana Mendes Maneschy, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Direito moral do compositor não garante posse de fitas originais gravadas, diz STJ

BRASIL. Lei 9.610/98, 19 de fevereiro de1998. Lei de direito autoral.

Disponível em:
http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9610.htm

ABRÃO. Eliane Y. Direitos de autor e direitos conexos. 2a. edição, revista e ampliada. São Paulo: Editora Migalhas, 2014;

“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 recognizes new designation of origin

Brazil recognizes new denomination of origin

In February 2022 the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) published the recognition of “Norte de Minas” (North of Minas Gerais State) as a Denomination of Origin (DO) to the Aroeira honey.

This new Denomination of Origin establishes an area of 64 municipalities where the especial characteristics of the soil and climate, the presence of the aroeira-do-sertão tree with its specific interrelations and the knowledge of the beekeepers of the region, result in the production of a honey with characteristics and qualities derived from their geographical environment.

Brazil recognizes new denomination of origin

 

The North of Minas region concentrates large areas of dry lands ideal to growth of the aroeira-do-sertão tree, which are the main source of food of the Apis mellifera bees. This combination results in a honey with high concentration of phenolic compounds and honeydew, that differentiate this honey from others produced from different vegetable sources.

These natural factors aligned with the know-how of the beekeepers regarding the best trees where to fix the hives, its handling and right moment of harvest, allows the obtainment of high quality Aroeira honey. 

This denomination of origin elevates the number of geographical indications registered in the BPTO to 98, being 30 denomination of origin, 21 national and 9 foreign, and 68 indication of origin, all national.

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

Source: Primeira IG de 2022 é para o mel do Norte de Minas

“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.”

Product from north of Minas Gerais receives geographic indication by BPTO

Product from north of Minas Gerais receives geographic indication by BPTO

A product named “Mel do Norte” received, this month (february 2022), the recognition of geographical indication, in the kind of denomination of origin, because it has unique and therapeutic characteristics.

Geographic Indication is an institute that granted to products or services a special identify by their place of origin and that brings to the product/service a reputation, value and an own identity, in addition to distinguishing this products from similar products available in the market.

As provided in the Brazilian Industrial Property Law, the Geographic Indication has two types: Indication of Origin and Denomination of Origin.

 

Product from north of Minas Gerais receives geographic indication by BPTO

 

The Denomination of Origin (DO) is the recognition of a country, city or region whose product or service has specific characteristics due to its geographical environment. 

Aroeira honey, now called as “Mel do Norte de Minas Gerais” received the Denomination of Origin recognition, because this product has compounds that strengthen the immune system and this is due to the fact that bees extract honey from a plant (Myracrodruon urundeuva) predominant in this region, known for its arid climate and little rainfall.

Therefore, it is expected that the new recognition of this product will bring the recognize, including an international promotion, adding value and resulting income for local producers in the north of Minas Gerais state.

Author: Beatriz Cambeses Alves, Junior Associate at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Mel do Norte de Minas Gerais recebe Indicação Geográfica por suas características únicas e terapêuticas

“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.”

Exercising Prior User Rights before Brazilian Courts

Exercising Prior User Rights before Brazilian Courts

The prior user rights aim to guarantee to the user in good faith a certain trademark that has been filed and acquired by someone else.

The §1 of art. 129 of Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/96) requires, besides the good faith, proof of use of the trademark to distinguish or certify an identical or similar product or service at least 06 (six) months before the filing of the application.

Since Brazilian law does not stipulate how to exercise prior user rights, especially regarding the place of such claim, whether before Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) or the courts, some precedents provide guidance on how to act. 

In trademark nullity lawsuits in which prior user rights are invoked, BPTO is currently claiming that only administratively would the party be able to require precedence to a trademark registration.

However, the argument does not seem to meet the legislative intent with the §1 of art. 129 of Brazilian Industrial Property Law, nor does it appear to be aligned with the constitutional guarantee of access of the Judiciary.

Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has several decisions recognizing the possibility of exercising prior user rights judicially and not only administratively, i.e., “[…] the interpretation that should be made of art. 129, § 1, of Law 9.279/96 cannot be understood as a restriction of means for the exercise of this right, preventing the previous user in good faith from seeking the Judiciary in the face of injury or threat to the right.”.

 

 

Nevertheless, STJ repudiates the claim of prior user rights before State Courts, having decisions that determine the contentious jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to analyze the possibility of granting precedence to a trademark registration to any individual or legal entity. In this regard:

However, the defendant could only claim the right of precedence, expressly provided for in § 1 of art. 129 of the LPI, before the BPTO or in its own lawsuit before the Federal Court, so that, if the registration granted to the appellant was annulled, it would be granted the registration of the trademark.

Indeed, as it necessarily implies the cancellation of the trademark already registered, such claim can only be made before the Federal Court, under the terms of art. 175 of the LPI (Brazilian Intelectual Property Law), and the matter cannot be examined even incidentally in the State Court.

Therefore, in addition to the requirements in §1 of art. 129 of the Brazilian Intelectual Property Law (user in good faith and proof of use of the trademark at least 06 months in advance from the filing), the precedents of Brazilian Superior Court of Justice have been admitting the possibility of exercise prior user rights administratively or judicially, as long as the judicial claim is made through a trademark nullity lawsuit, before a Federal Court. 

Author: Carlos Eduardo Nelli Principe, Associate Lawyer 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.”

Cancellation for nonuse of trademarks in Brazil

Cancellation for nonuse of trademarks in Brazil

After obtaining the trademark registration, it is important to continue using the trademark as the one requested within the application. If you’ve had a trademark for more than five years and you start using a different mark, with another words, colors, or designs, you can lose your trademark registration in Brazil.

According to the Brazilian law, “after five (5) years of its granting, on the date of the application, the registration, upon request of any person with legitimate interest, shall expire if: 

I – the trademark has not been used in Brazil; or 

II – the trademark has ceased to be used for more than five (5) consecutive years or, within the same term, the trademark has been used in a different manner, causing its original distinctive nature to be changed, as provided for in the certificate of registration”.

.

Cancellation for nonuse of trademarks in Brazil

So, if you cease the use of your trademark or do any change you can lose your trademark.

Sometimes, the registrant wants to promote changes in the trademark, in this case, if any detail is modified in the trademark, you must file a new trademark application.

On the other hand, if you want to register a mark and you find a previous mark of third party that is not in use, you can request the cancellation of this trademark registration, as long as you prove the legitimate interest. If the request of cancellation for nonuse is accepted by the BPTO, your trademark application has a better chance of being granted.

Author: Luciana Santos Fernandes, Associate Lawyer 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.”

Apple is involved in a patent infringement lawsuit by a canadian company

As linked on tecnology news portal, on the beggining of this month (December, 4), the company ImmerVision, a Canadian technology company specializing in images processing, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the american company Apple claiming that the company had incorporated its invention to the devices Iphone 11, Iphone 12 mini, Iphone 13 pro max and even the Ipad.

APPLE IS INVOLVED IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT BY A CANADIAN COMPANY

The patent object of the lawsuit was filed in May, 2002 on the USPTO and concerns a method for capturing and displaying a digital panoramic image of variable resolution.

Thus, the ultra-angular sensor used in the Apple’s cameras would be considered an infringement of the Canadian company’s patent.

On the lawsuit, ImmerVision requires a compensation and an order to block the use of its patent in the future.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Wilmington, State of Delaware/USA and the Defendant Apple has not ruled on the matter yet.

Author: Beatriz Cambeses Alves, Junior Associate at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Apple é processada por empresa do Canadá por violar patente com câmeras do iPhone

“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 intellectual property protection in games

The intellectual property protection in games

In 2019, the digital games industry alone – without considering physical copies – generated $ 104,4 billion in revenue, revealed Statista, a company specialized in market data. After pandemic arrived, revenues increased by 23 percent year-on-year to $ 128,3 billion in 2020. By 2025 a value of $ 268,8 billion is expected to the game market. 

These numbers reflect the strength of an industry recognized for being very innovative and that grows exponentially each year. In such environment, it is normal for gaming companies to worry about protecting their ideas, inventions, and other creations through intellectual property mechanisms, including patents. 

In Brazil, patents cannot be used to protect the games themselves, their rules, conception, their visual presentation, etc.. In many cases, these aspects are protected through copyright or through the creation of a trademark related to the game.

Furthermore, the source code through which the game exists, runs, and is implemented (software), is not patentable. A software registration, which is equivalent to a copyright registration, may be used to protect source code.

Because of its ease of use and versatility, copyright (as defined in Brazilian Law n. 9,610/1998) is a significant protection for most game firms, as it is an adequate tool for protecting game ownership.

Copyright encompasses tales, characters, scenarios, music, graphics, and even the source code in the game world. Nevertheless, copyright protects the expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. 

 

The intellectual property protection in games

 

This has two ramifications: no game ideas are copyrighted until they are implemented in some form (like source code, or in a word file, i.e.). Second, similar concepts used in various games do not always infringe on third-party copyrights. If an FPS shooting game is registered, for example, there will be no infringement of the rights of the person who registered if another person registers a game with the same genre but different aspects.

Copyright also gives the owner the ability to prevent others from exploiting his work. Moreover, they are simple to enforce and independent of registration, as they exist from the minute the game is created, while patents and trademarks have complicated registration systems, and trade secrets necessitate specific actions to be taken within the organization, as well as continual monitoring to maintain the right. 

Even if registration is not required to invoke copyright, it is highly advised because it is a quick and easy approach to establish authorship and priority in the event of a dispute.

It is important to remark that although software (source code) cannot be patented in Brazil, it is possible to patent software by describing and defining it as methods, processes, and systems that solve a technical problem through a technical solution.

When these concepts are applied to the game industry, one can patent inventions such as digital signal processing (which includes image, graphics, lighting, textures, objects, rendering, and sounds), procedural data generation, handling a dropout situation in a network game, memory management, processing commands issued by a player, and so on.

Before filing a patent, it is necessary to check in Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) and other patent databases to see if a similar or identical invention has previously been registered. 

Author: Carlos Eduardo Nelli Principe, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Video game industry – Statistics & Facts 
Digital Video Games To Hit $146B In Revenue In 2021, A 40% Increase In Two Years

“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.”