Considerations for EU SMEs when transferring personal data to Latin America

Laia Esteban Guinea
ICT Lawyer

As many of you may know, next May 25, 2018, the new European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be fully implemented for European companies. The GDPR, which was adopted on May 2016 establishing a two-year transition, will replace the Data Protection Directive (DPD 95/46/EC).

The main aim of this new regulation is, not only to harmonize the different national regulations existing at European level, in order to guarantee equality on the protection of personal data regardless of the nationality or place of residence, but also to ensure a legal framework adapted to the digital era.

Because the implementation of the GDPR is almost upon us, companies need to hurry up if they want to comply with the new obligations arising from said Regulation. Among other aspects, EU companies should be aware of:

  • The need to comply with the principles of accountability and transparency. This involves quite a significant amount of documentation requirements. Other principles such as privacy by design and by default, must also be observed. This entails designing and implementing appropriate technical and organisational measures.
  • Making an analysis of the potential risks in order to find weaknesses in the treatments performed by the company as regards personal data management.
  • Obligation to provide, at the time of the collection, some information regarding the identity of the controller (i.e. who decides how and why such data is processed), the purposes of the processing, the legal basis for the processing, the period for which the personal data will be stored and, where applicable, if the controller intends to transfer personal data to a third country or international organisation.
  • Attend and inform the data subject (i.e. individuals whom the data is about) about several data protection rights such as the right to be forgotten, right to restriction of processing, right to object an automated individual decision-making or right to data portability.
  • Notify the supervisory authority about any breach regarding personal data (e.g. in Spain, the Spanish Data Protection Agency) without undue delay and, where feasible, no later than 72 hours after being aware of it.
  • Designate a Data Protection Officer, if the core activities of the company consist of processing operation which require regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale or if the core activities of the company is to process special categories of data, as may be the case of business performing profiling activities.
  • And if the company processes personal data using new technologies, it will be necessary, prior to the processing, to carry out an assessment on the impact of the envisaged processing operations on the ability to ensure appropriate protection of personal data.

Rather than extending myself in the description of the obligations imposed by the GDPR, I will highlight the impact that this new European regulation might have in Latin American countries.

In Latin America, data protection is a very topical issue. One of the major developments in the region was the creation in 2003 of the Ibero-American Data Protection Network (RIPD). This network began with representatives of 14 Ibero-American governmental agencies and focused its first activities in trying to advance in the adoption of a new regulatory framework and implementation of data protection authorities in its member states.

After the advances in the legal and institutional fields, the network switched its focus to cooperation activities: exchange of information and experiences, as well as the development of common actions and policies.

In this context, and now enlarged to 21 member states, the RIPD has recently recognized in the “RIPD in 2020”, that there are some countries such as Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panamá, Paraguay and Venezuela, where an additional impulse regarding the legal framework is required.

Thanks to the RIPD’s labour, in June 2017 the “Ibero-American data protection Standards” was presented in Chile. Its main objective is to facilitate the flow of personal data, not only between Ibero-American states, but also beyond their borders, in order to foster innovation and economic growth in the region.

Those Standards were developed taking into consideration other international regulations, such as for instance the GDPR. It seems that one might say that the GDPR has a positive impact beyond the European borders, particularly in Ibero-American States; where the European example seems to inspire them to work towards homogeneous rules in the region facilitating the flow of personal data.

All the aforementioned, is important for European companies: if they are considering to transfer personal data to Latin-American companies, they will need to comply with the GDPR and, in particular:

  1. Make sure that the third country where the company towards which personal data will be transferred is located in a country that ensures an adequate level of protection according to the European Regulation. Currently only Uruguay and Argentina comply with this requirement.
  2. In the absence of the above, it could be possible to guarantee appropriate safeguards through binding corporate rules or standard data protection clauses.
  3. Otherwise, companies could try to have the data transfer covered by one of the exceptions provided in article 49 GDPR: for example, because they have obtained explicit consent from the owner or because the transfer is necessary for the conclusion of a contract.

To sum up, if your company is considering transferring personal data from Europe to Latin America your company must comply with the GDPR. Do not forget it! Time goes by and 25 May 2018 is there!

2017 in review: summary of INDECOPI’s innovation in the field of Trademarks

Ernesto Barzola
Lawyer at Barreda & Moller

In recent years, many Intellectual Property Offices of Latin America have been enacting new provisions as to harmonize their IP systems according to the international standards. Countries such as Peru, through the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), have implemented new measures in order to improve the efficiency and speed of the registration and granting procedures of IPRs.

In this regard, it must be highlighted that INDECOPI ended 2017 with a total of 34.213 registered trademarks, which represents a grow th of 27,3 % with respect to 2016. This increase was achieved as part of INDECOPI’s resolution to reduce registration time for trademarks from 6 months to less than 4 months.

One of the measures taken by the INDECOPI (covering both trademarks and patents) was the online publication of the applications. The online publication not only reduced time of registration proceedings but has also helped reduce the costs associated to such proceeding. Before online publication, applicants had to pay an additional fee (between 40 to 150 euros, depending on the size of the publication).

Early 2017, rules regarding Industrial property proceedings were modified. Some of these modifications, aiming to reduce processing times are the following:

– Adoption of measures to reduce the workload of Administrative Courts. Mainly through a better allocation of competence regarding grounds of appeal. The Administrative Court will hear of appeals of opposition, revocation, nullity actions and infringement actions. Directorates and Commissions will hear about appeals regarding denial of registration when no opposition has been filled.

– To avoid further delays during a proceeding, there is now a prohibition to file additional documents or briefs when a proceeding is ready to be resolved. Unless it provides an out-of-court settlement satisfactory to the parties (for example, coexistence agreement or an agreed suspension of proceedings).

Regarding infringement actions, henceforth the Administrative Court will not be able to increase a fine imposed on the defendant unless the plaintiff had appealed the amount of the fine. This practice, which arose in the courts, has now been included in the Peruvian Trademark Law.

Finally, the Peruvian Trademark Office uploaded its database to the TMview instrument allowing interested parties in filling application in Peru to have access to this registry. Not only it simplifies the procedures but it also allows to reduce the costs.

Two decisions issued last year by the Andean Community are also worth mentioning.

First, the Andean Court of Justice clarified the difference between a well-known trademark and a renowned trademark. The importance of the decision is due to the fact that Decision 486 does not regulate the renowned trademarks and its rules are limited to the well-known trademarks.

According to this Decision, there is no need to prove the “renowned” character of the trademark in order to be recognized as such. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the specification made by the Andean Court of Justice consist on a quotation as a footnote, hence, it is very likely that the National Courts continue to require proof of the alleged well-known character of the trademarks. We will have to wait for a modification of the Andean Trademark Law which is expected for a near future.

Second and finally, regarding revocation proceedings (also known as cancellations for non-use) when complying with the required proof of use, the following should be taken into account:

–       Revocation proceedings are not intended to punish trademark owners who advertise and make their products available to the public if the number of sales is not as elevated as expected. Therefore, the analysis should not be limited to accountable documentation but also take into account advertisement and presence in the media or the market.

–       Sales should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether or not the pause of sales is justified or not.

–       Given the above, if the owner of the trademark can prove the use of the trademark at any moment within the relevant period, revocation must be dismissed.

The repercussion of the latest decision is due to the reticence from the Trademark Authority to consider proven the use of a trademark, if the documents filed were not able to demonstrate an elevated quantity of sales or if the sales were sporadic.

In conclusion, 2017 was important for the Peruvian Trademark Office in terms of innovation and for the Andean Community in terms of a new vision on how to apply the different concepts of the Decision 486. We can expect the impact of these measures to be felt as of 2018 and, given the improvements implemented in 2017, further legislative developments can be expected for 2018.

Brazil new regulation proposal and measures for reducing patent backlog

Instituto Dannemann Siemsen de Estudos Jurídicos e Técnicos

This article has been written by Natália Barzilai and Gisela de Lamare de Paiva Coelho

As a result of the massive backlog of two hundred and forty-four thousand patents applications as of May, 2017, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) has been studying multiple measures to continually reduce the already famous tardiness of its examinations. The BPTO has come up with some controversial ideas.

Successfully, the BPTO has created categories in order to speed up its process, the first one being the “Green Patents”, reducing by 90% the processing time regarding the analysis of environment related innovations. After such a positive outcome, in June, 22, the BPTO extended this project to innovations from the Science and Technology Institutions (STI). Although it is still a temporary strategy limited to a certain number of “STI Patent” applications, the BPTO seeks to reduce from the average time from 10,8 years to 10 months as it is already the case with “Green Patents”.

Another conservative approach to reduce the backlog created by the reduce number of technical examiners, is to join forces with ANVISA (Brazilian Health Agency). As required by the Brazilian IP Law, the BPTO must send all pharmaceutical patents to the Health Agency to be analyzed and check out if there is no forbidden substance in it. Only after obtaining prior approval the BPTO’s technical exam can start. Having such a relevant role in the process of the analysis, the BPTO has proposed ANVISA to send its examiners to the BPTO facilities. Such small measure can help optimize the proceedings not only because the BPTO has an automatic system but because it also prevents losing time between Agencies’ transfers. In addition, the BPTO and ANVISA have established two guidelines in 2017 to fasten ANVISA’s analysis. Now granting of prior approval is based only on the presence of forbidden substance – not on the patentability of the innovation as it used to be. These guidelines not only shorten the analysis period but also provide more legal security as the Health Agency is obliged to grant the approval based only in public health requirement.

Besides those measures, facing the original source of the backlog, the BPTO is studying the possibility of implementing the successful method applied by the Japan Patent Office (JPO). As presented by Takuya Yasui in December, 2017, Japan successfully tackled its backlog by adopting two measures. First, by sub-contracting all preliminary activities, such as research before technical decisions. Today JPO has 10 companies providing its research and, even though they are private companies, supervisors are often retired JPO’s examiners. Second, hiring temporary examiners for 5-year periods which can be renewed for 5 more. With such changes, the time until the exam was reduced from 2,4 years in 2008 to 10,4 months in 2014.

Regarding the most controversial proposals, the BPTO has issued Resolution nº 193 seeking to expedite the examination of Brazilian patent applications under the PCT. In this Resolution, the BPTO has regulated that it will not perform a search of its own and will only incorporate the search already performed by an “office of reference”, meaning, International Searching Authorities (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authorities (IPEA).

The BPTO also started a public consultation for a proposal establishing that patent applications filed or with the national phase initiated up to the date of publication of the future regulation, will be granted 90 days, following a notice of admissibility, to decide whether they want to opt or not for a simplified patent application procedure, provided that they meet certain requirements and are not the subject of third-party observations (also called pre-grant oppositions). Patent applications for pharmaceutical products and processes are, in principle, excluded from this simplified procedure, potentially for political reasons and because of the scrutiny of ANVISA regarding these patents.

As reported in a previous publication at Dannemann Siemsen News[1], according to the proposed simplified procedure, the patent applications to which it applies will be automatically allowed without substantive examination, provided that a few requirements are met:

  1. Certificates of addition, divisional applications and, as above-mentioned applications covering pharmaceutical products and processes are not eligible;
  2. The filing of the patent application or request for entry into the national phase (in the case of PCT applications) should have occurred before the publication date of the proposed regulation;
  3. The application has been published or the early publication requested up to thirty days from the date of publication of the future regulation;
  4. Examination of the patent application should have been requested within 30 days following the publication date of the future regulation;
  5. Annuities payments must be in order; and
  6. No official actions regarding patentability have been published.

Our general advice would be to remove patent applications related to important inventions from the simplified procedure due to the following reasons: (i) the future patents are more likely to face validity challenges; (ii) BPTO’s delay would be compensated somehow since our IP Law currently guarantees a minimum of 10-year patent term from granting date; and (iii) it is possible to put an application to a fast-track examination in case of unauthorized exploitation or through a writ of mandamus.

In particular applicants having a large number of pending patent applications in Brazil should begin to chart a strategy in relation to their portfolio in view of possible new regulations. Meanwhile, we are hoping for the best.

[1] Ahlert, I. B., Murari Calazans, S. “Brazilian Government considers adopting simplified procedure for granting patents without substantive examination”, 1st december 2017,

How to overcome business challenges from a policy perspective: recommendations of the EU-LAC Business Forum

Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk
Protecting your Intellectual Property in Latin America

On 6 November, EUROCHAMBRES presented the recommendations of the Business Forum between the European Union (EU) – Latin America and Caribbean States (LAC) (click here to refresh what we highlighted one month ago).

In words of our Eurochambres colleagues, the conclusions of the document reflect that the “private sector pushes for deeper EU–LAC bi-regional economic relations as political agenda stalls”.

The recommendations focus on promoting inclusive and sustainable growth through enhancing the role of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in bi-regional economic relations.

The presentation took place during the seminar “The future is today: The European Union and the Americas facing a unique opportunity”, organized by the Euroamerica Foundation at the European Parliament in Brussels, with the participation of EU high-level authorities.

The Business recommendations are a result of the EU-LAC Business Forum, which took place in Mexico City on 12th October 2017 with around 200 participants from the business community, and financial institutions, as well as policy makers and academics from both sides. The event proved to be a successful example of economic diplomacy in a challenging bi-regional political environment which ultimately lead to the postponement of the EU-CEL that was planned for last month.

Arnaldo Abruzzini, CEO of EUROCHAMBRES, said: “These recommendations are a testament to the private sector’s continued commitment to deepening EU-LAC economic relations. Business as usual would be a wasted opportunity for our regions in times of rising global protectionism and political volatility. We need greater continuity in our bi-regional economic agenda, more deliverables in terms of trade deals and their implementation and stronger joint leadership in shaping globalisation based on our shared values”.

Recommendations of the EU-LAC Business Forum

The Declaration outlines tangible recommendations which should help guide decision-makers in adopting an EU-LAC policy framework that is conducive to sustainable growth. It covers key topics in the bi-regional economic relationship, such as trade and investment, a partnership for productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship and strengthening MSMEs.

The document –endorsed by EUROCHAMBRES, the IberoAmerican Association of Chambers of Commerce (AICO) and the Association of Latin American Industrials (AILA)– emphasizes the importance of establishing an institutional mechanism to guarantee an effective follow-up on proposals tabled by the public and private sectors from both regions. This mechanism should ensure continuity to the bi-regional strategic partnership.

The EU-LAC Business Forum was organized by EUROCHAMBRES and CAINCO (Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Tourism of Santa Cruz, Bolivia), as leader of the EC-funded AL-Invest 5.0 programme with the support of AICO, AILA and ProMexico.

You can check the entire text of the Recommendations of the Business Forum EU-Latin America and Caribbean here

Moreover, if you want to know more about any Intellectual Property related issue in Latin America, do not hesitate to contact our Helpline. Our experts will be delighted to provide you with free, confidential, fast, first-line assistance.

15 good practices about IP management in the machinery sector in Latin America

Rodrigo Ramírez Herrera
Partner at Larraín Prieto & Cía.

A well-planned, tailor made IP protection and enforcement strategy is key to success in every new business adventure, particularly when you are going abroad. Seek professional IP advice before you take any step if you want to prevent undesired situations and check our recommendations on some of the most important IP aspects to be included in your checklist before, during and after you enter the Latin American countries.

1. Use technology watch and competitive intelligence tools in the destination marketplaces

Fix your aims, set-up your monitoring activity according to your strategy, look for sources to watch your marketplace in publicly available information and commercial software and make your own key performance indicators of IP information collected or outsource these activities.

2. Determine the Freedom to Operate (clearance for technology, innovations, and patents)

A prior in-depth analysis of marketplace in Mercosur and Chile, by sectors of machinery technologies it is a sound decision (also known as a market clearance search). Take into account to performance searches on international databases is useful the IPC (International Patent Classification).

Keep in mind that can it be risky to attempt to bring an innovation in machines to Mercosur market without first conducting a freedom-to-operate search, as such products (and their patents, including parts and tools) may be vulnerable to infringement suits, potentially resulting in costly litigation procedures in other jurisdiction and/or forcing your company to withdraw a product from the market altogether.

3. Search prior art of your machinery and parts and define its novelty

If your firm is researcher/developer of technologies, should define the prior art for each innovation in order to avoid spending resources or commit infringement of third parties rights, or outsource this work.

4. Identify, inventory your IP assets, ensure its ownership and adopt appropriate mechanisms for their protection

Ensure that the agreements specify, in as much detail as possible intangible assets of intellectual nature (including references non-disclosure data, secrets and relevant confidential information) supplied before and during the operations in the Mercosur and Chilean market, through audits and inventories.

5. Register your IP rights before commercializing in the destination countries

Even if it may sound obvious, registering your IPR at an early stage of your entry into the Mercosur or Chilean market has a deterrent effect and makes enforcement more effective. It also helps to avoid other problems, such as bad faith applications.

6. Register your trademarks in the Customs Service (where available)

Registration will facilitate the detection and blockage of infringing goods through special service of Custom agency available for trademarks in order to apply border measures. This type of register is not provided by all the Latin American Customs authorities and is independent from the National Intellectual Property Office’s.

7. Renewal your IP registrations in a timely manner and appoint a local legal representative (an IP lawyer, preferably)

Normally, you can avoid cancellation of your IP Rights by paying an additional fee during a certain period (3 or 6 months after expiration). An expert with expertise on the local regulation and the field will allow you to prevent incurring in extra costs and even loosing your rights.

8. Communicate with public Intellectual Property-related authorities

A fluent relationship and communication with the IP authorities, such as the police or customs agents, will allow more agile decision-making and obtaining more detailed information in order to defend and enforce your rights. It is also recommended to send a representative to police raids and seizures.

9. Communicate with other IPR owners

Take into account that counterfeiters tend to use the same distribution channels, storage points and routes of entry. Joining efforts with other IPR owners could be beneficial for all parties.

10. Consider other alternatives before claim before courts

Sometimes sending a «Cease-and-Desist Letter» is sufficient to stop the infringement, especially in cases where the infringer is a small retailer.

11. Follow good practices from industries’ associations

Joining industries´ associations may be useful in order to join efforts and develop good practices based on the experience of each member. They are also used to develop joint awareness campaigns addressed to users and clients.

12. Off-shoring anti-counterfeiting support

Detecting the country of origin of counterfeited products may help you to block the goods in a very early stage of the distribution channels and can help you to save costs. This is particularly effective if your IPRs are also registered in the country of origin of the goods.

13. Monitor repeat offenders ( a counterfeit of machinery, parts, and tools)

In the case of repeat offenders a close monitoring could provide information regarding their distribution channels, suppliers, and clients.

14. Enforce your IPR before courts: combine criminal and civil actions

Even in the case of clear criminal behaviors, combine such criminal actions with civil actions (e.g against the most creditworthy of the infringers) to obtain as many damages as possible.

15. Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements, non-competence and other agreements in force after you leave the market

Check the legal force of agreements related to intellectual property, keeping in mind that trade secrets may not last for a specific term of years, according to as agreed.

For further information on the Machinery sector, you can check our Factsheet Machinery and IP in MERCOSUR and Chile or ask our experts.

The Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk team contributes to the EU-LAC bi-regional dialogue in the field of Intellectual Property

Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk
Protecting your Intellectual Property in Latin America

Micro, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) are a fundamental component of the productive fabric of the majority of the world’s economies. The European Union, CAINCO (Chamber of Commerce of Santa Cruz in Bolivia), ECLAC (the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), EUROCHAMBRES (the Association of European Chambers of Commerce) and PROMÉXICO organized a series of thematic events in Mexico City on 10th– 14th October in order to share experiences and to consolidate the cooperation between the European and the Latin American and the Caribbean private and public actors that support the development of the MSMEs. Other EU-funded programmes, such as the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk, ELAN Network, ELAN Biz and ADESEP for Central America have also been involved in the organization of the economic cooperation week.

The EUROMIPYME seminar “Latin America and Europe facing technological disruption: a new era of policies and institutions for MSMEs” organized by ECLAC opened the series of events. The seminar facilitated the discussion on how to build a common language for the design of a new generation of development tools for MSMEs, where cooperation between both regions, supported by a fluid public-private dialogue, can become a key factor for transformation. Eli Salis, IP expert of the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk intervened as panellist during the session on public private dialogue.

On the 11th of October, Paolo Baldan, from EUROCHAMBRES, as partner of the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk, presented the services of the Helpdesk to the CEOs of the European Bilateral chambers and EUROCAMARAS of the 7 countries covered by the ELAN BIZ programme (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Perú). He reiterated the full availability of the Helpdesk to organize free of charge training modules on Intellectual Property (IP) on use and protection of trademarks, designs, patents and copyright in Latin America. The Helpdesk will obviously adapt the session according to the priority countries, sectors and topics and time availability. The Helpdesk was also represented on the 12th of October at the EU-LAC Business Forum organized by CAINCO and EUROCHAMBRES bringing in the role of IP protection in the market access facilitation and innovation process. The importance of the bi-regional cooperation on building information schemes on Intellectual Property and the provision of training and capacity building programmes such as the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk was underlined in front of an audience of 200 EU and LAC private and public sector representatives. The event was also an occasion to outline a series of business driven proposals and recommendations which should guide decision-makers in adopting an EU-LAC policy framework for a business friendly environment that is conducive to sustainable growth.

Lastly, César Elvira Fernandez, IP expert of the Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk, presented the Helpdesk services and business cases of success at the annual event of the AL-Invest 5 programme, organised by CAINCO on 13 October 2017.

Marcas no convencionales: Unión Europea vs América Latina

Eli Salis
Partner at DISAIN IP

Aquellos que nos dedicamos a la propiedad intelectual tenemos la fecha del 1 de octubre señalada en rojo en nuestros calendarios desde que se aprobara el nuevo Reglamento (UE) Nº 2015/2424 que modifica reglamentos anteriores sobre la marca comunitaria, ya que será el momento en el que entren en vigor las últimas novedades del mismo, introduciendo importantes cambios en cuanto a la representación de las marcas europeas se refiere, con la finalidad de modernizar el sistema de marcas dentro de la Unión Europea, haciéndolo más accesible, eficiente y coherente en su conjunto.

Como ya es sabido por todos, el nuevo Reglamento hace desaparecer el requisito de la representación gráfica para los signos que se pretendan registrar, sustituyéndolo por los criterios adoptados oportunamente por el TJUE en el caso Sieckmann, según los cuales será suficiente con que la marca pueda reproducirse en el registro de manera “clara, precisa, completa en sí misma, fácilmente accesible, inteligible, duradera y objetiva”, por medio de cualquier tecnología generalmente disponible.

De este modo se abriría a priori la puerta al registro de marcas no convencionales que, hasta el momento, veían privado su acceso registral al no poder superar el obstáculo de la representación gráfica. Sin embargo, debemos tener presente que, a partir de ahora, determinadas marcas no convencionales podrán representarse mediante el uso de medios electrónicos de reproducción. Tal es el caso, por ejemplo, de las marcas sonoras, de movimiento, de posición, hologramas o multimedia.

Sin embargo, si bien es cierto que se presagia un nuevo futuro para determinadas marcas no convencionales, otras, como las olfativas, táctiles o gustativas, seguirán encontrando dificultades, ya que no existe actualmente tecnología disponible que permita su representación de forma precisa, inteligible y, sobre todo, duradera y objetiva.

Además de la falta de medios técnicos, otro obstáculo de nuevo cuño introducido por la propia reforma del Reglamento (y de la Directiva) es la inclusión de la muletilla “y otras características” a la prohibición absoluta recogida en el artículo 7.1 (e), que originalmente se refería en exclusiva a la forma del producto y ahora se extiende a otros tipos de marcas, en un intento por contrarrestar el efecto flexibilizador de la supresión del requisito de la representación gráfica. Tendremos que estar a la práctica de la EUIPO y de los Tribunales para ver cómo se interpreta esta nueva disposición.

Por otra parte, si bien estos estándares se van a aplicar de manera uniforme dentro de la UE, en el ámbito extracomunitario -y más concretamente en Latinoamérica- los requisitos para el registro de marcas varían de un país a otro, por lo que estas marcas pueden encontrar nuevos obstáculos al tratar de ampliar la protección a nivel internacional.

De este modo, encontramos que en casi la totalidad de países latinoamericanos (con algunas excepciones) sigue vigente el requisito de la representación gráfica (o de un signo visualmente perceptible), aunque gran parte de ellos plantean una definición amplia del concepto de marca, posibilitando la entrada, si bien de forma progresiva, a las marcas no tradicionales.

Así, en Argentina es posible registrar marcas sonoras desde hace varios años, existiendo incluso alguna decisión favorable de los Tribunales sobre la registrabilidad de marcas olfativas. También en Uruguay se permite el registro de marcas sonoras. En la Comunidad Andina, como en Chile, algunos de estos tipos de marcas están expresamente enumerados en sus correspondientes disposiciones legales como signos que constituyen una marca. Así encontramos que, por ejemplo, en Colombia se han registrado más de 850 marcas no convencionales, entre las que se encuentran marcas tridimensionales, de color, de posición, sonoras e incluso gestuales y táctiles aunque no se ha concedido ninguna marca de olor. En otros países, sin embargo, como es el caso de Brasil o México, las marcas no tradicionales todavía tienen un largo camino por recorrer.

Por tanto, y retomando la práctica europea, habrá que esperar a ver cómo se interpretan estas nuevas modificaciones y, sobre todo, la restricción comprendida en el nuevo artículo 7.1 (e) antes de augurar un futuro prometedor a las marcas no convencionales en Europa que realmente suponga un avance considerable con respecto a las legislaciones de otros países de nuestro entorno.

Este artículo ha sido elaborado en colaboración con Gracia Tordesillas.

Freedom of speech through the Internet in Mexico

Sergio Rangel
Intellectual Property Expert at Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk



On June 2017, the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice (@SCJN) analyzed an Amparo suit filed by Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V., a well known Mexican internet service provider (ISP), filed against the §199 Bis. Industrial Property Law preliminary injunction granted by the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property, also known as IMPI. The preliminary injunction rationale was the alleged infringements by storing and disseminating copyrighted music works, via a webpage.

In order to stop the allegedly infringing activities of said webpage, IMPI ordered Alestra and other ISPs to block the IP address in Mexican territory.

Alestra challenged IMPI’s preliminary injunction, in lower federal courts via an Amparo suit (Constitutional appeal) and lastly the case reached the highest Court in the country.

Supreme Court Justice Alberto Pérez-Dayán, member of its Second Chamber, drafted the opinion which resulted in two precedents. [1] [2] Per the opinion, blocking a webpage may violate the freedom of speech (recognized human right in the Mexican Constitution as well as in international treaties). It is mandatory for any Mexican government agency to take into account the freedom of speech as part of the limits to impose preliminary measures. Likewise, the injunctions shall be deemed in the law, grounded in a legitimate purpose, as well as necessary and proportional.

Because freedom of speech shall be a major concern to the Mexican State, any limitation cannot be unreasonably wide or generic. So a general block may be suitable only when exceptional circumstances raise, including inducement to terrorism, hate, racism, discrimination, genocide, violence, child pornography, etc.

Likewise, the threat of potential distribution of illegal copyrighted material is not per se a valid argument to entirely block a webpage since this blocking may include legal contents and protected speech, resulting in censorship.

Concerned of the application of the aforementioned precedents, the Mexican Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (@AMPPI_AC) organized on September 1st, 2017, the conference: “#LibertadDeExpresión. Supreme Court criterion related to blocking of webpages and its interaction with the Intellectual Property”.

Justice Alberto Pérez-Dayán was the speaker on behalf of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice.

In my opinión:

In the last months, Intellectual Property Rights owners and colleagues have been shocked due to the opinion of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice, regarding the blocking of webpages. Apparently, the opinion blocks most of the online enforcement administrative actions. I disagree.

Seems clear that the Court is not restricting the authority of IMPI to grant preliminary injunctions against webpages, but establish rules.

Because the generic block is an extraordinary measure, it demands also extraordinary work to justify it.

Blocking webpages is constitutional when the authority properly rationale that the measure is adequate to prevent violations to intellectual property rights.

The blocking of a webpage must be reasonable and proportional. As Justice Pérez-Dayán said; a block may be applicable when the transit through the webpage is impossible without run into illegal contents.

Therefore, the matter is not to face a technical matter v. Human Rights, or to confront Freedom of Speech v. Copyrights. The matter is to prevent a government agency to misuse authority that may result in a disproportional   enforcement action or censorship… is to work hand-in-hand with IMPI to obtain rational injunctions that may result in a partial or even in total block of alleged-illegal contents.

Total block of webpages may be constitutional, but depends in how the block is carried out.



Overview of the LATAM IP systems from the Special 301 Report perspective

Rebeca Nieto
IP Expert at Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk

Every April since 1989, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes the Special 301 Report. This report evaluates the level of adequacy and effectiveness provided by U.S. trading partners’ countries on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) protection and enforcement.

Although the Special 301 Subcommittee received IP data and information from more than 100 trading partners, this current edition is focused on 34 countries, which have been placed either on the Priority Watch List or Watch List.

Eleven countries are on the Priority Watch List: Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine and Venezuela. Under this category fall those countries that do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection, enforcement o market access, according to the USTR standards.

Twenty-three countries are on the lower-level Watch List: Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Guatemala, Jamaica, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Switzerland, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

As regards Latin America, the Report highlighted the efforts and positive actions taken by these countries to face the existing IP challenges. Let’s see briefly some of them:

  • Mexico and Costa Rica are committed to use licensed software in their government agencies.
  • Brazil, Argentina, Dominican Republic are reducing their patent and trademark application backlogs by hiring new examiners, digitalizing internal procedures and increasing the efficiency of their online applications management systems.
  • Brazil has made significant progress in combating online piracy.
  • Ecuador, besides updating its IP system with the Ingenuity Code, had lowered its patent fees.
  • Costa Rica has improved its inter-agencies IP coordination mechanisms and increased IP criminal prosecutions.
  • Many countries are also enhancing their IP regimes by enacting new provisions -it is the case of Mexico, who has recently introduced a sui generis opposition procedure for trademark applications- or by entering into Patent Prosecution Highway (PHH) agreements -as for example the Pacific Alliance (Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) and PROSUR (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay), in order to accelerate patent proceedings-.

On the other hand, the Report also detected a wide range of concerns that, according to the Office of USTR, may restrain innovation, competitiveness and investment on those countries. Some IP issues that remain unsolved or that have not been properly addressed are, among others, the following ones:

  • The fight against online piracy remains insufficient in many countries like Argentina, Venezuela, and Colombia.
  • Piracy and counterfeiting are particularly widespread throughout Venezuela, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Bolivia, Brazil or Colombia.
  • Illicit camcording, to be considered as a major way to obtain unauthorised copies of new movies, is spreading on Mexico and Peru.
  • Enforcement against suspected infringing goods at the border must be improved in many countries of this region. In this respect, different enforcement mechanisms are deemed essential, such as the creation of a formal customs recordal system in Costa Rica, enhance border control in Peru or authorization to Mexican customs agents for taking ex officio actions for goods in-transit.

The IP concerns and issues raised in this Report are dealt by the U.S. through bilateral dialogue or enforcement tools, including the WTO dispute settlement procedures.

Finally, it must be appointed that over the last years, the annual classification of countries made by this Report has remained almost unchanged in relation with Latin American countries. In this sense, the last alteration was 2015, when Ecuador switched from the Watch List to the Priority Watch List, place which occupied only once during the last decade.

However, and considering the continuous efforts and positive steps given in many Latin American IP systems, significant changes are expected on this list in the near future.

Novedades de PI en Perú

Laisha Mubarak
Lawyer at Philippi, Prietocarrizosa Ferrero DU & Uría

El 29 de mayo de 2017 se ha aprobado a través del Decreto Supremo N° 059-2017-PCM el Reglamento del Decreto Legislativo Nº 1075 (en adelante, el “Reglamento”). El Decreto Legislativo N° 1075 aprueba disposiciones complementarias a la Decisión 486 de la Comunidad Andina que establece el Régimen Común sobre Propiedad Industrial y sus modificaciones. Para estos efectos, el mencionado Decreto Legislativo se le denominará como la “Ley”.

El Decreto Supremo ha sido emitido según lo ordenado en la segunda disposición complementaria final del Decreto Legislativo N° 1309, Decreto Legislativo de simplificación de los procedimientos administrativos en materia de Propiedad Intelectual seguido ante los órganos resolutivos del Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual-INDECOPI.

Entre los principales alcances del Reglamento se encuentran los siguientes:

Régimen de Poderes:

En caso el representante se acredite como tal mediante un poder que obra en la Superintendencia Nacional de Registros Públicos – SUNARP- y desee emplearlo, debe indicar de manera expresa en su solicitud el número de partida registral en el que dicho poder se encuentra inscrito.

Fecha de solicitud de registro:

En caso la solicitud de registro de marca no cumpla con los requisitos exigidos por la Ley, la Unidad de Trámite Documentario requerirá al solicitante dicha información y otorgará un plazo de sesenta (60) días hábiles para que complete la información, sin asignarle número de expediente ni fecha de presentación. La Unidad de Trámite Documentario mantendrá en su custodia la solicitud hasta que el administrado subsane los requisitos. Caso contrario, se devolverá al solicitante los documentos que hubiese presentado.

En caso la Unidad de Trámite Documentario no detecte la omisión de alguno de los requisitos exigidos por Ley, la instancia respectiva observará la solicitud y otorgará un plazo para subsanar.

Notificación a depósitos temporales autorizados por SUNAT:

Las medidas cautelares dictadas en procedimientos relacionados con la presunta infracción a derechos de propiedad industrial cuya mercancía se encuentre almacenada en depósitos temporales autorizados por la SUNAT, son notificadas a los correos electrónicos proporcionados por los referidos depósitos, precisándose el tipo de medida cautelar a cumplir y la identificación de la mercancía sobre la cual recae la misma.

Diligencia de inspección:

Las solicitudes de diligencia de inspección deben cumplir con los siguientes requisitos: a) encontrarse debidamente sustentada; b) acreditarse el pago; c) indicar el lugar donde se llevará a cabo la diligencia; d) nombres y apellidos completos, denominación social o razón social, documento nacional de identidad, carné de extranjería o cualquier documento análogo del solicitante, domicilio procesal, y de ser el caso los datos de identificación de quien ejerza la representación de éste; e) registro Único de Contribuyentes, en el caso que corresponda; f) firma o huella digital, en caso de no saber firmar o estar impedido; g) identificación del certificado de registro que ampare el derecho del accionante. En el caso de acciones sustentadas en un nombre comercial, registrado o no, debe presentar los documentos que acrediten el uso actual, real y efectivo del mismo, con anterioridad al momento de interposición de la solicitud. En caso de acciones sustentadas en signos distintivos notoriamente conocidos deberá acreditarse tal condición; h) copia del escrito y sus recaudos, según la cantidad de notificaciones a realizarse. En caso de presentarse pruebas que consistan en muestras físicas, deberán adjuntarse ejemplares adicionales o, en su defecto, una representación de la misma.

 Asimismo, se deberá cumplir con el procedimiento detallado en el artículo 118° de la Ley.

De no cumplir con los requisitos antes señalados, se notificará al solicitante para que subsane la omisión en el plazo de dos (02) días hábiles, bajo apercibimiento de tenerse por no presentada la solicitud.

Procedimiento Sancionador:

La autoridad nacional competente en materia de propiedad industrial puede promover los siguientes procedimientos sancionadores: a) procedimientos iniciados por proporcionar a la autoridad nacional información falsa u oculte, destruya o altere información, entre otros supuestos del artículo 116 de la Ley, b) supuestos contemplados en el artículo 7 del Decreto Legislativo Nº 807, c) supuestos contemplados en el artículo 55 de la Ley, d) procedimientos iniciados por el uso ilegal de la denominación “marca registrada”, “M.R.”, “denominación de origen, “D.O.” u otra equivalente que indiquen falsamente la existencia de un derecho de propiedad intelectual, e) procedimientos iniciados por incumplimientos de resoluciones y medidas cautelares y f) denuncias iniciadas de oficio.

Presentación de escritos ante la Sala Especializada en Propiedad Intelectual:

Las partes tienen el derecho de presentar los escritos y documentos que consideren pertinentes hasta antes de que el expediente pase a etapa de ser resuelto. El Acta levantada por la Secretaría Técnica en la que se deje constancia de que el expediente pasa a etapa de ser resuelto surtirá efectos a partir del sexto día hábil de notificada. Los escritos presentados con anterioridad a dicha fecha serán evaluados por la autoridad, salvo que sean escritos reiterando los argumentos de hecho o de derecho que hayan sido expuestos anteriormente.

Quedan exceptuados de lo dispuesto en el párrafo anterior aquellos escritos que contengan desistimientos, conciliaciones o transacciones extrajudiciales.

Renuncia a la presentación:

Durante cualquiera de las etapas del procedimiento, los representantes de las partes pueden renunciar a dicha representación debiendo cumplir para tal efecto con lo establecido en el Código Civil. La variación del representante no afecta la vigencia del último domicilio procedimental fijado en el expediente, en tanto no sea variado expresamente.

Presentación de solicitudes a la Sala Especializada en Propiedad Intelectual:

Toda solicitud de exhibición de documentos, de diligencia de inspección o que las partes presenten debe ser debidamente sustentada, caso contrario será denegada de pleno derecho.

Plazos para citar a las partes:

La fecha de cualquier tipo de audiencia debe ser notificada a las partes con un mínimo de cinco (05) días hábiles y puede ser reprogramada por solicitud de parte mediante una solicitud justificada con al menos tres (03) días hábiles previos a su realización.


Se puede desistir del procedimiento o de alguna pretensión antes de que la resolución final de la segunda instancia administrativa sea notificada. Esto genera que las resoluciones que se hayan emitido durante el procedimiento queden sin efecto.

Contenido de la Resolución:

La Autoridad tiene la facultad de declarar la nulidad de la resolución impugnada en caso de encontrarse incursa en alguna causalidad de nulidad, sin ser necesario que ella haya sido invocada por las partes. 

Domicilio procedimental:

El domicilio procedimental fijado por las partes se presume vigente, sin admitir prueba en contrario, en tanto no se comunique su cambio por escrito. Si quien recibe la notificación presenta un escrito devolviendo la notificación, éste se tendrá por no presentado.

Recurso de Reconsideración:

El recurso de reconsideración que, además de la nueva prueba, tenga como sustento cuestiones de puro derecho o distinta interpretación de las pruebas presentadas, será calificado como un recurso de apelación.

· Aplicación de la ley: Las reglas de competencia establecidas en el artículo 4 de la Ley, modificado por el Decreto Legislativo N° 1309, son aplicables a los recursos de apelación que se hayan interpuesto luego de la entrada en vigencia del Decreto Legislativo N° 1309 (31 de diciembre de 2016). Así, la Dirección de Signos Distintivos, a través de su Comisión, conocerá y resolverá en segunda y última instancia los recursos de apelación recaídos en procedimientos no contenciosos (registro, renovación, modificación, entre otros).

La Sala Especializada en Propiedad Intelectual del Tribunal del INDECOPI sólo conocerá y resolverá en segunda y última instancia los recursos de apelación que versen sobre procedimientos contenciosos.

· Aplicación de las Reglas Procedimentales: Lo dispuesto en el título de reglas procedimentales es aplicable, en lo que corresponda, a los procedimientos seguidos ante las Direcciones de Propiedad Industrial y las Comisiones que las integran.

· Vigencia: El Reglamento se encontrará vigente desde el día siguiente de su publicación.

La iniciativa del poder ejecutivo, gratamente seguida por el Indecopi, implica grandes avances y mejoras para el usuario, toda vez que se simplifican procedimientos y se racionalizan los requisitos que éstos deben presentar. Sin perjuicio de ello, me gustaría recalcar que, respecto a la modificación referida a la fecha de solicitud de registro, al no asignársele un número de presentación cuando exista una observación, deja abierto a interpretación en qué fecha se entenderá presentada la solicitud, ya que no se señala expresamente. En ese sentido, si la fecha de presentación será la de la subsanación, habría que tener mucho cuidado con solicitudes que ingresen con posterioridad a la solicitud observada y aún no subsanada; ya que la fecha de presentación podría ser anterior y la nueva solicitud gozaría de prioridad.