The Brazilian Trademark Office has published a resolution with rules to examination of position trademark

The Brazilian Trademark office has published a resolution with rules to examination of position trademark

There is no disposition in Brazilian law prohibiting non-traditional trademarks, however the Brazilian Trademark office (BPTO) does not accepts it.

In Brazil, only word marks, device marks and three-dimensional marks are allowed by BPTO.

Even so, in June, the BPTO published a consultation regarding the registration of position trademarks. After discussions a resolution was published in September 21.

From October 2021, it will be possible to file for position trademarks in Brazil.

 

The Brazilian Trademark office has published a resolution with rules to examination of position trademark

 

The resolution states rules regarding the application and the trademark distinctiveness. For example, if the position of the trademark in the product is common for that product the trademark will be rejected. Also the position of the trademark in the object have to be fixed.

The list of good should be limited to the product/service where the trademark is positioned.

Finally, it is important to mention that the signal inserted in this certain position of the object can be a word, symbols, colors, numbers.

If you have any question regarding to trademark position and the rules in Brazil feel free to send your questions to inter@peduti.com.br.

Author: Laila dos Reis Araujo, Senior Associate & Head of The International Department 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.”

Disclosing WhatsApp conversation print should generate compensation

In August of this year, in the judgment of Special Appeal nº 1903273, The Superior Court of Justice – STJ, the highest Brazilian court for standardizing the interpretation of federal law all over the country – confirmed the understanding of the disclosing WhatsApp conversation print should generate compensation, which was written by Minister Nancy Andrighi.

The lawsuit was filed by a member of the board a football team who feel harmed in their rights after another member of the club’s governing body who was also in the group have disclosed prints conversation without the consent of the other members of the group.

The understanding expressed in the judgment is based on the principle of inviolability to privacy provided for in article 5, item X, of the Brazilian federal Constitution:

 

 

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:

(…)

X – the privacy, private life, honour and image of persons are inviolable, and the right to compensation for property or moral damages resulting from their violation is ensured;

According to the understanding expressed in the judgment, the disclosure of content of this nature without the permission of those involved in the dialogue is likely to be considered an infringement.

The decision reinforces the need for good privacy practices in the use of digital platforms.

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

Source: STJN destaca decisão que torna indenizável a divulgação de print de WhatsApp (STJN – the news program of the STJ – highlights that Disclosing WhatsApp conversation print generates duty to indemnify)

“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.”

What is unfair competition? How to proceed in Brazil if my competitor practices unfair competition?

The unfair competition is a crime provided in the Brazilian Industrial Property Law. It is committed by anyone who:

  • employs fraudulent means to divert customers of others, to his own or another party’s advantage;
  • publishes, by whatever means, false statements to the detriment of a competitor, for the purpose of obtaining any advantage;
  • uses, unduly, a third party’s trade name, business name or insignia, or sells, displays or offers for sale or has in stock a product bearing these references;
  • and others hypothesis provided in the law.

 

 

Acts of unfair competition are generally characterized by bad faith, fraud and deceptive trade practices.

The penalty for unfair competition crimes in Brazil is imprisonment of 3 (three) months to 1 (one) year, or a fine.

The perpetrator also must be processed, to pay all the damages caused. A suit might result in an order of monetary damages and an injunction against the guilty party if continue with such actions.

A prompt action against the competitor is important to avoid damages, confusion or association by the customers.

We emphasize that is important to be assisted by professionals specialized in intellectual property in these cases. Our office monitors your intellectual property rights and possible violations. Contact us for more information.

Author: Luciana Santos Fernandes, Junior 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 Skate Fairy – Rayssa Leal fights a dispute in Brazil for the annulment of the registration of the trademark “Fadinha do Skate” (The skate fairy)

In September 2019, a company called RRS Odontologia, a dentistry company located in Maranhão, Brazil presented a trademark application for the trademark “FADINHA DO SKATE” (the skate fairy), nickname Rayssa (Olympic Athlete) is known for in the whole world.

In August 2020, Rayssa claimed the cancellation of the trademark register before the BRPTO based on article 124, XVI in which is stated that a trademark it is not registerable as a well-known pseudonym or nickname, singular or collective artistic name, except with the consent of the owner, heirs or successors.

The expression “FADINHA DO SKATE” it’s a well-known nickname adopted by Rayssa and the dentistry company did not have the consent from Rayssa to register it as a trademark. The Olympic athlete’s defense argued that “A simple search for the expression on Google returns numerous news, images and videos with quotes from the nickname with which the applicant was famously known in the country and in the international sports world”.

 

Rayssa Leal, a ‘Fadinha do Brasil”, comemora a conquista da medalha de prata no skate street
Foto: Wander Roberto – 26.jul.2021/COB

 

To get the trademark, Rayssa had two paths: requesting the registration of the same expression in different categories than the company in her city already has (clothing and medical and educational services) or trying to cancel the granted registrations. She chose the second one and is trying to cancel the third-party registration.

Then, the BRPTO will analyze if the trademark “FADINHA DO SKATE” its really a well-known nickname as she defends.

The main discussion is that this decision will depend on the it evidence presented by Rayssa because the truth is: this nickname is highly associated with her now due to the Olympic games but is she known by this nickname for that long? Or was it only well-known by the skaters?

Considering the chances of Rayssa, its not possible to know whether the BRPTO will follow one or other path. The BRPTO can point out that she should have monitor this trademark applications before its grant and not after that.

In these cases there is more chance to cancel the trademarks in a nullity action than administratively in the BRPTO. But, the BRPTO can follow another understanding regarding this matter.

Author: Laís Iamauchi de Araujo, 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.”

The upcycling and its implications in the legal world

The upcycling and its implications in the legal world

The upcycling is an old technique used by the fashion industry. It is summarized in the practice of reusing materials that had already been used like pieces of fabric, pieces of clothes, trim, etc for manufacturing new clothing pieces. 

Additionally, it is important to distinguish upcycling from recycling. Recycling basically involves other processes to transform the materials and give them a new destination, whereas the upcycling is the practice to adapt the materials without changing its original format. 

The problem is that the legal world does not have much knowledge about the practice and how to regulate it. So then, this matter creates a lot of debates and doubts about the practice of upcycling by the fashion industry and its impacts in the legal world.

This technique gained power specially because nowadays the entire world is focusing on sustainable practices and moreover when it comes to the fashion industry with the large volume of wasted produced.

A lot of luxury fashion companies have put this technique into practice. Miu Miu launched a whole collection with dresses inspired in the 30’s and 50’s, with some pieces found in vintage stores that were transformed in some exclusive clothes. In the same way, Louis Vuitton launched a collection that uses reused fabrics from their own past collections.

The problem is fixed when third parties put the upcycling in practice.

 

The upcycling and its implications in the legal world

 

The first legal aspect related to intellectual property is related to the rights of trademark holders affixed to the transformed products. The brazilian intellectual property law, in its article 130-III, guarantees the trademark owner the right to ensure the material integrity and reputation of its trademark. 

With that, considering that all the products created by the upcycling technique by third parties do not have any form of license or authorization for the use of the trademark by their respective holders, it is possible to adopt measures against third parties that manufacture and market these items, under the following basis:

  1. Trademark violation – when using a part of the fabric or a button with a registered trademark and transforming it in another item, and sell it with its own trademark, the trademark rights are being violated;
  2. Unfair competition – when a product with a registered trademark its changed, the consumers tend to be confusedabout the quality and characteristics of the products. Besides that, there is parasitic exploitation;
  3. Unjust enrichment – the third parties are getting money without the investment that the trademark owner did on the creation of the trademark and its reputation;
  4. Tarnishment – the modified products might dilute the distinction and reputation of the original trademark.

As seen, third parties that use upcycling technique may face obstacles in Brazil, specially regarding the intellectual property violation. That is why the original trademark owners have to keep an eye in the market practices and try to repress the unauthorized use of their materials. 

Author: Laís Iamauchi de Araujo, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: The legal world does not have much knowledge about the upcycling practice and how to regulate it. So then, this matter creates a lot of debates and doubts about the practicing of upcycling by the fashion industry and its impacts in the legal world

“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.”

Position marks in Brazil

Position marks in Brazil

Nowadays, in Brazil it is only possible to protect trademarks composed by individual words, symbols or design, and a combination of these elements.

In some countries we can also protect colors, sounds and smells as trademark, called non-traditional marks.

A famous kind of non-traditional mark is the position mark. Position mark consists in the specific way in which the mark is placed on or affixed to the product, always in the same way, and able to identify the business source of goods and services. A position mark can be formed by many elements like words, letters, numbers, symbols, drawings, images, figures, colors, shapes, or the combination of these elements.

 

Position marks in Brazil

 

This peculiar way of positioning the mark on the product makes it distinctive. Some examples:

1) The stripes of Adidas;

2) The red bottoms of Louboutin’s shoes;

Some points require to be considered to recognize the position trademark, such as the description of the object; description of the signal applied to the object; the precise definition of signal placement and others.

Recently, the BPTO started a public consultation to discuss the topic. It is likely that we will be able to register position marks in Brazil soon.

Author: Luciana Santos Fernandes, Junior 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.”

My trademark is being infringed. What should I do?

My trademark is being infringed. What should I do?

The Industrial Property Law guarantees to the owner of the trademark registration ownership rights and exclusivity of use over the trademark, throughout the national territory. Those rights include the right to ensure the material integrity, positive reputation and image of the trademarks under its ownership.

However, what can the owner do if a third party is improperly using its trademark?

Initially, it is recommended to send an out-of-court notification or a judicial notification to the infringer, with an explanation of the facts and legal arguments that support the application for immediate abstention from use.

In general, prior notification of the infringer has positive effects and is a way of resolving the issue in a friendly manner.

 

My trademark is being infringed. What should I do?

 

However, if the infringer refuses to refrain from using the trademark, it is recommended that a lawsuit be filed, which may be done independently of out-of-court or judicial notification.

The lawsuit may contain a claim for compensation, because Brazilian law provides that the owner of the trademark is due moral and material damages in case of infringement of its exclusivity right.

So, if your trademark is being infringed, look for an expert. Peduti Advogados is a law firm located in São Paulo, Brazil, specialized in Intellectual Property, with more than 40 years of tradition in the field, offering all services related to the areas of Copyright, Trademarks, Patents, Industrial Designs, Software, Technology transfer and Entertainment Law. 

In our team we have lawyers, engineers and technicians specialized in Intellectual Property who are qualified to give a swift and clear answer to our client needs, be they related to advisory or litigation.

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.”

Ownership of patents arising from employee’s inventions

Ownership of patents arising from employee's inventions

Disputes between employees and employers over the rights arising from the invention developed by the employee while his/her employment contract is in force are not unusual before Brazilian Courts. 

Until the advent of the most recent Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law 9,279/96), disputes involving the ownership of the patent protecting the employee’s invention were dealt with by the application of Brazilian Labor Law (Decree-Law No. 5.452/43).

In that scenario, patents belonged to employee and employer in equal parts, except if the core of the employment contract was scientific research, that is, if the employee had been hired precisely to invent.

It was understood that the employee’s efforts to develop the creation would already be remunerated by his salary. Therefore,  the patent belonged exclusively to the employer, provided that  he made the deposit in his name within one year of its creation, under penalty of losing ownership of the invention to the employee.

However, Brazilian Industrial Property Law supplants the Labor Law in that sense, dedicating a specific chapter to deal with the subject. In fact, Chapter XIV, of Title I (Patents), lists in articles 88 to 93 the way in which ownership of the patent object of the employee’s invention must be decided.

The article 88 of Brazilian Intellectual Property Law remarks that the invention or utility model will only belong exclusively to the employer when the employee, who developed the invention, has been expressly hired for that purpose.

This is because, if the employee was hired precisely to invent, develop, create or improve a certain system or product, his or her inventive activity is the very core of the employment contract, and every invention is remunerated by the salary stipulated in the contract.

When the employee was not hired for the purpose of developing inventions, article 90 of Brazilian Industrial Property Law provides that “industrial creations” generated in this context (called “free inventions”), will belong exclusively to the employee.

 

Ownership of patents arising from employee's inventions

 

It is important to highlight the law establishes that the employee’s ownership of the patent results from the fulfillment of two requirements: having the creation been developed in complete disconnection from the employee’s obligations contained in their employment contract and the non-use of any resources of the employer.

Failure to meet the first requirement, that is, if the employment contract provides for the creation or improvement of systems and products among the employee’s obligations, as a rule flows into the employer’s ownership of the creation.

The failure to comply with the second requirement, which implies the prohibition of the use of the employer’s resources, will imply the hypothesis provided for in article 91 of Brazilian Industrial Property Law.

Indeed, such article states that the ownership of the invention will be common, in equal parts, when it results from the employee’s personal contribution and from the employer’s resources (and others), being guaranteed to the employee fair remuneration for the exploitation of the invention.

In other words, the right of industrial exploitation of the invention, through a patent, will belong to the employer, and the employee is responsible for receiving fair remuneration for their creative efforts.

However, Brazilian Industrial Property Law does not define the concept of fair remuneration. So, it is up to the parties, or to the magistrate in court to deal, to define a remuneration amount that is fair to the parties, considering the economic benefits that will be earned by the industrial application of the invention over time.

Notwithstanding the regulation given by Brazilian Law, which provides apparently simple, direct and objective provisions to decide the ownership of a patent resulting from the creation of the employee, the disputes over the patentable invention are not so simple due to the various particularities that involve the development of creation.

People are often hired informally or with employment contracts without sufficiently detailed specifications about their obligations, or that bring doubt about whether the inventive step would be included in the contractual obligations.

In this context, it will be up to the Judiciary to analyze the employment contract in light of the activities carried out by the employee and in the fair expectation of the employer to decide on the scope of the employment relationship.

On the other hand, there are situations in which it is not simple to find out whether or not the employee used employer’s resources to develop the invention, and it is necessary to find out in court what extension of the invention could be developed by the employee without the support provided by the employer.

Although Brazilian Industrial Property Law brings objective provisions to determine ownership of a patent covering an invention developed by the employee, it is certain that the factual issues involved in the creation of an invention may bring the need for intervention by the Judiciary to find out the way in which the creation took place and then apply the rules brought in law.

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.”

Unfair competition in the Fashion Industry

time at a fashion industry

The 1st Reserved Chamber of Business Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP) dismissed the appeal brought by one company of the Apparel Industry accused of copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is a pinnacle problem in the fashion industry. It’s not new that the fashion design sector suffers with unfair competition, but there are legal mechanisms to restrict this practice.

The lawsuit was filed by two related companies against one Brazilian luxury clothing brand.

The plaintiffs companies complained that they had clothes that were being imitated by the defendant company.

Although the plaintiffs companies do not have industrial design registrations of their creations, the following rule provided by TRIPS Agreement is applicable:

Article 25 Requirements for Protection:

“2. Each Member shall ensure that requirements for securing protection for textile designs, in particular in regard to any cost, examination or publication, do not unreasonably impair the opportunity to seek and obtain such protection. Members shall be free to meet this obligation through industrial design law or through copyright law.”

 

time at a fashion industry

 

In the first instance, the judge interpreted that the act of the Defendant was a practice of parasitic competition, taking benefit from the goodwill and reputation of a Brazilian luxury clothing brand.

On appeal, the defendant maintained that the similarities come only from the observance of global trends.

However, the Court maintained the sentence, based on the understanding that the rules of the article 195 of Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law nº. 9.279, of May 14, 1996) can be applied to the case at hand.

According to the rule laid down in article 195, items IV and V, of the IP Law:

“A crime of unfair competition is committed by the one whom:

  1. uses another person’s advertising phrase or sign, or imitates it, in order to create confusion among the products or establishments
  2. uses, improperly, another person’s trade name, title of establishment, or insignia, or sells, displays, offers for sale, or has in stock a product bearing these references;”

On June 02, The Justice Court of São Paulo, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the Appeal filed by Defendant. The Court maintained the position of the first instance in the sense that the Defendant, when imitating garments, parasitically took advantage of the plaintiff’s brand.

The unlawful conduct practiced by the defendant allows the presumption of damage to the plaintiff’s morals due to the violation of the industrial property right.

The Defendant can still appeal the decision but, according to the understanding of the majority jurisprudence, the chances of success are reduced.

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

Source: TJSP reconhece a contrafação de modelos de roupas como prática de concorrência desleal (TJSP recognizes the counterfeiting of clothing models as a practice of unfair competition)

“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.”

Disney bets on blockchain to prevent piracy

computador com o logo do walt disney

Disney has a vested interest in keeping pirates at bay as a major content generator. The entertainment company is participating in a number of enforcement measures since the launch of its new streaming platform (Disney+) and acquired a new anti-piracy patent on April 27, 2021. 

The patent US 10,992,454 B2 intends to make it more difficult for pirates to intercept films being distributed to theaters by using a blockchain-based distribution system. 

In essence, blockchain is a method of storing information in such a way that it is difficult or impossible to change, hack, or cheat the system. It is a digital log of transactions that is duplicated and distributed across the blockchain’s complete network of computer systems. 

Considering that pirates with the correct connections can make copies during or after movies make it to theaters, the blockchain mechanism proposed by Disney may prevent unwanted prior access of unauthorized people to its intellectual property. 

Several security safeguards are currently in place to prevent leaks from occurring. For example, theaters must follow specific guidelines, and all films must be watermarked. However, Disney fears that this will not be enough to deter pirates, specially because those measures are often reactive than preventative. 

 

computador com o logo do walt disney

 

The company claims that the distribution process may be more closely monitored by establishing a secure blockchain-based solution. Among other things, It will make it impossible to watch a movie before it gets at its designated location, , and also  keeping track of how many times a movie is shown in order to prevent bad distributors from exhibiting it more than they should.

It is important to remark Disney is not the first company to consider using blockchain to prevent piracy. On January 05, 2021, the USPTO granted to Dish Network L.L.C the patent US 10,885,159 B2, which proposes a unified anti-piracy platform to tackle copyright violations on Youtube, Facebook, Telegram, and many others.

Dish’s newly patented system addresses several shortcomings in current anti-piracy measures. It does not, for example, require copyright holders to actively search for pirated content.

There is no doubt that piracy has always been a big problem for content creators. With the advancement of streaming platforms in recent years, such companies have been investing more and more in mechanisms to protect their intellectual property, with the blockchain mechanism emerging as one of the possibilities to give control over access to content available on the internet.

Blockchain systems do have a lot of different applications and combating piracy could be one of them. 

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

Source: Disney registra patente de blockchain para combater piratas de filmes; Disney Patents Blockchain-Based Movie Distribution System to Stop Pirates; Disney Wants to Reinforce Its ‘Piracy Intelligence’ Team

“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.”