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.”

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.”

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.”

Does purposely destroing a work of art infringe copyright laws?

In mid-August, 2020, Romero Britto, a renowned Brazilian artist, became a trending topic on social media, for being involved in a quarrel in an art gallery in the USA, where he was holding a photo session. 

In the video, it is possible to see that a woman approached the artist holding one of his porcelain sculptures and accusing him of mistreating the employees of her restaurant. Then, the woman threw the sculpture on the floor and left Mr. Britto incredulous.

However, what if that happened in Brazil? Would have the woman committed a copyright violation? The answer is affirmative, because the destruction of a work of art implies an offense to the author’s moral rights.

The author of a work of art has both economic and moral rights. 

Does purposely destroing a work of art violet copyright laws?

Economic rights are ensured by article 28 of the Copyright Law (Law 9610/98) and guarantees that authors have the right to economically exploit their intellectual creations, through their publication, use or reproduction.

In turn, moral rights are provided for in Article 24 of the Copyright Law and are understood as “existential subjective rights”, as they have no economic content. By protecting the author’s personality materialized in the intellectual work, the author’s existential subjective right assumes a very personal character, being considered a personality right.

Among the moral rights of an author, we highlight the right to the integrity of the work, which is the author’s ability to oppose any modification of the work or the practice of any act that, in any way, could harm or affect it, as an author, in his/her reputation and honor.

Therefore, when breaking the sculpture of the artist Romero Britto, the woman did not destroy a mere porcelain object, but the artist’s own intellectual creation, the spirit of the artist embodied in it and the projection of the personality of its creator. And, if the situation had occurred in Brazil, she could be held liable for violation of the Copyright Law.

Lawyer Author of the Comment: Thaís de Kássia Rodrigues Almeida Penteado

Source

Headline: Restaurant owner smashes artwork after artist allegedly mistreats employees.

“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.”