The Significance of Expert Examination in Trade Dress Disputes: Insights from Brazilian Jurisprudence

Trade Dress Protection in Brazil: Jurisprudential Perspectives and Expert Examination

 

When it comes to trade dress, an institute not regulated by the Brazilian Industrial Property Law, it is the jurisdiction’s role to establish its protection, which is now a well-recognized matter commonly addressed by the Business Courts in central districts of Brazil.

 

However, assessing a potential trade dress violation is not straightforward due to the inherent subjectivity involved in defining the identity of a business, product, or brand without specific registration as a parameter.

 

 

In other words, trade dress encompasses a set of elements used by a business owner in their product or establishment, including visual, auditory, and even olfactory elements, often unregistrable, but which evoke the business’s identity in the consumer’s mind. Consequently, assessing its violation through a visual examination alone is insufficient, even for detecting potential infringements by third parties unrelated to the controversy.

 

Furthermore, establishing the factual existence of a trade dress, that is, the establishment of a set of elements in the consumer’s mind, is necessary before evaluating any potential infringement. This requires an analysis of market customs, which might be extrinsic to the evidence presented by the parties and beyond a judge’s knowledge.

 

For these reasons, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice recognized the necessity of conducting expert examinations in cases of this nature. Such examinations serve to analyze the technical and market-related aspects surrounding the trade dress of the disputing parties.

 

In the judgment of Special Appeal No. 1,778,910 – SP, involving two leading Brazilian jam manufacturers, where an allegation of defense restriction was made due to the denial of the requested expert examination, Minister Maria Isabel Gallotti stated the following:

 

“The composite image is complex and composed of several elements. Given the lack of legal classification and the fact that it cannot be registered, the occurrence of imitation and the determination of unfair competition must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the assistance of an expert is essential to evaluate market aspects, consumer habits, advertising and marketing techniques, the level of attention of the average or typical consumer of the product in question, the time when the product was launched in the market, as well as other elements that contribute to the presentation of the product or service.” (translated).

 

This precedent is of utmost importance as it provides more consistency and legitimacy to judgments issued by the Courts responsible for handling such cases.

 

Nevertheless, the establishment of this jurisprudential understanding does not simplify the lawyer’s role in the proceedings, particularly concerning the management of the expert examination. Therefore, the assistance of a specialized law firm like Peduti Advogados, exclusively focused on Intellectual Property, Entertainment, and Digital Law services, is indispensable.

 

.

Author: Enzo Toyoda Coppola e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados

Source: Apple tenta registrar imagens de marca na Suiça

 

“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.”