Madrid System governed only by the Madrid Protocol

INPI
Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial

The Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks — the Madrid Protocol — is one of two treaties comprising the Madrid System for international registration of trademarks.

The protocol is a filing treaty and it provides a cost-effective and efficient way to ensure protection for marks in multiple countries through the filing of one application with a single office, in one language, with one set of fees, in one currency.

The Madrid Protocol also simplifies the management of the mark, since a simple, single procedural step serves to record subsequent changes in ownership or in the name or address of the holder with World Intellectual Property Organization’s International Bureau.

With the recent access of Algeria to the Madrid Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, the filing and management of international registrations will be simplified. Signatory to the Madrid Agreement since 1972, the country was the last of the 95 members of the Madrid System which was not party of the Protocol.

This represents a milestone for the Madrid System. From now on all the international registrations of marks will be exclusively governed by the Madrid Protocol.

As explained by WIPO, “An international registration produces the same effects as an application for registration of the mark made in each of the countries designated by the applicant. If protection is not refused by the trademark Office of a designated country within a specified period (12 or 18 months), the protection of the mark is the same as if it had been registered by that Office. The Madrid system simplifies greatly also the subsequent management of the mark, since it is possible to record subsequent changes (such as a change in ownership or a change in the name or address of the holder) or to renew the registration through a simple single procedural step with the International Bureau of WIPO. Further countries may be designated subsequently.”

La marca: una herramienta para la toma de decisiones

Carolina Belmar
Trademark Subdirector at INAPI

Día a día nos vemos rodeados de una abundante oferta de productos y servicios, más o menos similares, entre los cuales debemos decidir cuál de ellos elegimos. En este escenario, las marcas ayudan a diferenciar y distinguir unos de otros.

El origen de las marcas se remonta a la antigüedad, cuando los artesanos reproducían sus firmas o “marcas” en los productos y, si bien en un principio, buscaba indicar propiedad, con el desarrollo del intercambio comercial ha evolucionado para servir como identificador del origen de los productos y servicios que se ofrecen en el mercado. En este sentido, la marca es un elemento que ayuda a ordenar el mercado en tanto busca evitar la confusión en el público consumidor.

En Chile, las marcas comerciales se encuentran reguladas en el Título II de la Ley 19.039 de Propiedad Industrial, que señala que bajo la denominación de marca comercial se comprende “Todo signo que sea susceptible de representación gráfica capaz de distinguir en el mercado productos, servicios o establecimientos industriales o comerciales. Tales signos podrán consistir en palabras, incluidos los nombres de personas, letras, números, elementos figurativos tales como imágenes, gráficos, símbolos, combinaciones de colores, sonidos, así como también, cualquier combinación estos signos”.

Las marcas, por tanto, pueden incluir nombres de fantasía (Kodak para material fotográfico), figuras (piénsese en esa especie de tic que utiliza la marca deportiva Nike), sonidos (recuérdese los acordes en guitarra eléctrica de la compañía Virgin Mobile) o combinaciones de unos u otros.

La marca es percibida como un elemento de identidad en la extensa variedad de productos y servicios ofertados en el mercado, contribuye a la transparencia y favorece la competencia. La marca, además, puede servir para señalar que un determinado producto es depositario de ciertas connotaciones -negativas o positivas, según el cliente-, confrontándose con otras en el proceso de comercialización. Las experiencias de los consumidores, respecto de un determinado producto o servicio, le permitirán en sus decisiones futuras definir rápidamente la elección de uno por sobre otro. En esa decisión, la marca cumple un rol fundamental, facilitando la identificación y finalmente la adquisición.

Un producto que posee ciertas cualidades adquiere a través del tiempo un prestigio definido, que podrá potenciarse y mantenerse gracias a la acción de una marca posicionada. Esta reputación se hace extensiva no sólo al producto sino además a quien lo elabora, e incluso podría llegar a identificar a quienes lo consumen.

Una marca que se mantiene y consolida en el mercado es entonces un agente silencioso y eficaz de la procedencia, a la vez que como signo distintivo comunica cualidades y atributos del bien que se comprará o del servicio que se obtendrá. Por tanto, es capaz de desarrollar una especie de “personalidad exclusiva”, capacitada para prestigiar a fabricantes y consumidores.

Frente a la potencial adquisición de un producto o servicio y ante la multiplicidad de opciones, uno de los primeros elementos que atrae a la mayoría de las personas, es la marca. De allí que, en algunos casos, ha llegado a transformarse en un símbolo que entrega, o definitivamente niega, la calidad y confianza de los consumidores.

De las múltiples marcas que se usan profusamente en el mercado; sin embargo, sólo aquellas que han sido registradas cuentan con el derecho exclusivo de usar ese signo distintivo en el mercado para los productos o servicios en que ha sido registrado.

Mayores informaciones en http://www.inapi.cl

Radiografía (rápida) de la propiedad industrial en Chile durante el primer año de INAPI como Autoridad ISA/IPEA

Eurochile
Fundación Empresarial

Cuarenta de las 155 solicitudes de patentes internacionales que ha gestionado INAPI en su primer año como organismo encargado de Búsqueda y Examen Preliminar Internacional corresponden a casas de estudios superiores.

De Chile, América Latina y el Caribe pueden provenir las solicitudes que desde hace un año puede gestionar el Instituto Nacional de Propiedad Industrial de Chile, INAPI, como Autoridad ISA/IPEA. Bajo este estatus realiza análisis preliminares, como identificar documentos publicados que puedan influir en la patentabilidad de una invención y emitir una opinión acerca del cumplimiento de los requisitos.

En el primer año de funcionamiento con este nuevo rol, INAPI recibió 155 solicitudes internacionales de patentes, de las cuales 40 fueron de universidades chilenas. “Hoy en día INAPI es la puerta de entrada al sistema internacional de patentes”, afirmó al respecto el director nacional del organismo, Maximiliano Santa Cruz, en una columna publicada por el sitio web de INAPI.

A nivel regional, el instituto es la segunda oficina en tener esta categoría después de Brasil, y a nivel global es la segunda de habla hispana, luego de España.

A estas cifras se le suman las generadas este año en materia de registro de marcas, las que a septiembre llegan a 31.047. Los datos muestran un positivo panorama para la propiedad intelectual en Chile. El año pasado el país se ubicó en el lugar 24 del ranking IPRI (International Property Rights Index), elaborado por Property Rights Alliance, lo que lo sitúa en el primer lugar en la región.

Dado el panorama internacional de una creciente globalización comercial, la propiedad intelectual se ha convertido en un tema central para los principales mercados. En este contexto, INAPI, junto con la Fundación Empresarial Eurochile, son socios del proyecto Latin America IPR Helpdesk, que depende de la Dirección General Investigación e Innovación (programa COSME) de la Comunidad Europea. Esta iniciativa busca “facilitar la expansión de las pymes europeas interesadas en operar en América Latina, a través del aumento de conocimiento del uso y reforzamiento del sistema de propiedad intelectual y de los derechos de propiedad intelectual”.

“El fortalecimiento actual de la propiedad intelectual, sumado al hecho de que las pymes puedan aprender a utilizarlos de manera estratégica en sus negocios en la región, redundará en mejores condiciones para que empresas europeas puedan instalarse en nuestros países, lo que trae innumerables beneficios tanto en generación de empleo e innovación, como en intercambio de conocimientos y tecnología”, asegura Ivonne Palma, experta en propiedad intelectual de Eurochile.

Ventajas de las patentes

El registro de patentes constituye un fuerte incentivo para las personas e instituciones que han invertido esfuerzos en invención. Las patentes significan un reconocimiento por su creatividad y recompensas materiales por sus invenciones comercializables.

En Chile, la ley reconoce que el dueño de una patente goza de exclusividad territorial, para producir, vender o comercializar y explotar de cualquier manera el invento protegido. El titular de la patente tiene el derecho de decidir quién puede utilizar la invención patentada durante el período de protección, concertando permiso de licencia a terceros, según términos establecidos de mutuo acuerdo.

La norma también establece que en caso de que terceros comercialicen la invención protegida sin un consentimiento, el titular podrá ejercer acciones legales, incluso por el período de tramitación del derecho.

Datos de noviembre de 2015.

International IPR SME Helpdesks Stakeholders Meeting

The China, Latin America and South-East Asia IPR SME Helpdesks are holding their Annual Stakeholder Meeting in Brussels on the 4th of April 2017. Joining the three regional Helpdesks as a co-organiser is Business Beyond Borders (BBB), an EU-funded initiative supporting businesses and clusters when attending international trade fairs around the world.

As a valued partner and user of the Helpdesk services, we are delighted to invite you to this event where you will hear about our latest developments, success stories and planned activities for 2017. To register and access the detailed agenda, please click here.

The event will include the participation of complementary key EU initiatives that are all supporting EU SMEs in their internationalisation efforts, as well as various intermediaries and companies. They will all contribute to the interactive panel- and roundtable discussions and will be available for the matchmaking session.

Similar to previous editions, the meeting will be a key opportunity to have your say on the services of the Helpdesks and join discussions on what can be done towards its continuous improvement in terms of support to businesses and collaboration with partner organisations and experts.

THE MATCHMAKING SESSION

The Matchmaking Session will take place at the end of the Annual Stakeholder Meeting place on the 4thof April from 15.00pm – 17.00pm. The dedicated area is located in the premises of the European Economic and Social Committee – Rue Belliard 99-101, 1000 Brussels.

It will be a great opportunity to interact with a wide variety of stakeholders of pertinence to IPR and SME internationalisation. As a company you will get the chance to have your questions answered by relevant experts.

Attendees will include European SMEs with an interest in expanding their business abroad as well as companies already established in, or working with business entities overseas with specific focus on China, Latin America and South East Asia. The presence of business support organisations and other EU supported schemes focusing on internationalisation, makes this an event you simply cannot miss!

Following the Matchmaking Session there will be a Networking Cocktail, to conclude the day.

We look forward to welcoming you on the 4th of April!

CIBEPYME – The platform to support SMEs in their processes of internationalization to Latin America

INPI
Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial

Created in the scope of the Ibero-American Program of Intellectual Property, the platform CIBEPYME is available to SMEs since 28th of October 2015.

This platform aims to support SMEs who intend to internationalize their products and services in the countries of Latin America.

The main objective of this platform is to enhance the use of intellectual property and to promote the effective management of intangible assets by SMEs, providing information, services and free assistance (through the inquiry form).

The CIBEPYME also allows the sharing of best practices, awareness campaigns, as well as case studies of companies that bet in the registration system, and also the dissemination of news and activities in each country.

At the moment, the information is only available to the countries belonging to the Latin American Program of Industrial Property (IBEPI http://www.ibepi.org): Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Spain, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Republic Dominican Republic and Uruguay.

The content of this website is in Spanish (in Portuguese only for Portugal and Brazil micro sites). The information will also be available in English soon.

Gold Medal for Chile

Maximiliano Santa Cruz Scantlebury
National Director of the National Institute of Industrial Property – INAPI

In 1986 the world heard the breaking news on the field of medicine. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the approval of the first recombinant vaccine, product developed to fight the Hepatitis B virus, a potentially mortal infection.

The Chilean biochemist Pablo Valenzuela Valdés was behind this historic scientific achievement. He became a referent of the genetic engineering as well as a pioneer on the technology transfer at the University of California, San Francisco.

The invention was patented and then licensed to pharmaceutical firms who were responsible for distributing the vaccine to dozens of countries. The license agreement has become the most prolific in term of economic results for the University of California, San Francisco in almost two decades, allowing funding new discoveries and further technology development.

Later the protection of industrial property on the vaccine, based on research about yeast, produced a number of tests which transformed the blood banks in a safer source.

Dr. Valenzuela´s contribution still gathers praise. On last October 22nd he became the first Chilean scientist to be awarded with the Gold Medal for Inventors, given by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The award was promoted by The National Institute of Industrial Property of Chile (INAPI), due to Valenzuela significant contribution to the creation of new knowledge and its appropriation, which has meant a truly entrepreneurship engine for development.

The award had a special meaning for the patent system, as was given at the first anniversary since INAPI began operations as International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority (ISA/IPEA) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This new role, reserved only for 21 national agencies in the world, has meant a stimulus for Chilean universities and inventors in order to globalize their inventions and reach bigger markets.

During this year, 11 countries from Latin America and the Caribbean, which are PCT members, have designated the Chilean office as the mandated office to search and conduct the preliminary examination on patents.

Thus, the Chilean agency of industrial property provides services beyond their borders as well as Chile paves the way for the proliferation of new inventors who might impact the world with their technological developments as Pablo Valenzuela did almost three decades ago. He is the undisputed winner of the WIPO Gold Medal.

From vlogger to freebooter – the difference a URL can make

Adriana Hernández Gallegos
Project Manager at Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey – ITESM

In November 2015, the number of videos that were published in Facebook pages exceeded the number of audiovisual works registered in Youtube, making Facebook the most popular platform for sharing videos. Facebook has worked hard in recent months to improve video-watching features and functions, and adjusting its algorithm to give preference to those videos that allow more interaction. Facebook has now become the giant of video-sharing in the internet.

The quantity of video posts uploaded on Facebook is impressive, but recently, many video creators are rightly complaining about the dubious origin of the videos shared on this site and the lack of copyright enforcement strategies by Facebook. And what does this have to do with you? Many of us have probably watched a video on Facebook that was uploaded without the authorization of the video creator. Actually, according to a recent report from Ogilvy and Tubular Labs, “out of the 1000 most popular Facebook videos of 2015, 725 were re-uploads by people who didn’t own the video.”

This action of downloading copyrighted content from a media hosting site and re-uploading it without the creator’s authorization is called “freebooting”, a term created by Brady Haran, during his “Hello Internet” podcast. Before the term existed the practice of re-uploading content without authorization was called “infringement”, but as Haran said, it was considered a very soft word for this practice.

Right now many people and companies continue to freeboot, impacting the economy of Youtube channels and creators. But how is this happening exactly? Remember those ads showing when you start watching a video on Youtube? Well this is part of the revenue sharing strategy from Youtube, in which the site shares a percentage of money given by companies for advertisement to the creator of the video where the ads are being shown. Believe it or not, there are people that make a living in Youtube, but they need a large number of views to make a real income from their videos. If someone posts and shares a freebooted video, the views from the freebooted video are not counted toward the number of views that are profitable to the creators. In other words, each time a freebooted video is watched, the creator of such video loses the opportunity to make a profit.

Youtube video bloggers (Vloggers) around the world have started the conversations about how this dishonest practice affects their industry, pointing in particular the lack of protection they have in some social networks and sites. Specifically, Facebook has become one of the most criticized sites by the vloggers, given that the massive number of Facebook users represents the vlogger’s main opportunity loss.

Hank Green, American entrepreneur, blogger, and vlogger, famous for his YouTube channel “Vlog Brothers”, published a blog post where he accused Facebook of cheating, lying, and downright stealing video content. Facebook responded to this accusation arguing that they are committed to help people and organizations protect their intellectual property rights, but the company has not made any substantial changes to their video management platform to prevent freebooting.

What can you do to prevent it?

If you want to promote an artist, a creator, or a vlogger; you need to provide the URL to the source material allowing users to directly access to the original media site. You can also help by reporting those videos that are being freebooted on social media and other sources. These solutions are free and take only a few clicks. It comes back to the average user to make the internet a better place.

PCT: The backbone of the international patent system

Maximiliano Santa Cruz Scantlebury
National Director of the National Institute of Industrial Property – INAPI

It has been over six years from the entry of Chile to one of the most important and successful agreements of intellectual property. The 2nd of June of 2009 our country was incorporated into the 148 member nations of the Patent Cooperation Treatment (known as PCT), managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and which saw the light over 40 years ago, in 1970.

Practically all of our major commercial partners like United States, the European Union, Brazil and China are PCT members. In addition, it can be highlighted that countries with very different economic developments such as Australia, Mexico, Canada, South Africa, Japan, Malaysia and India are members as well. This proves the trust put in this international agreement, which also foster innovation and technology transfer, through the free and efficient access to an enormous database of technology information on patents.

The incorporation of Chile to the PCT has completed a triad of significant events that have strongly impacted on the intellectual property system in our country. Besides the implementation in Chile of the intellectual property agreement from the World Trade Organization´s (WTO), during 2005, as well as the signing of a couple of free trade agreements, remarkably the one with United States, the PCT has closed a cycle of important transformations within our intellectual property system.

The PCT is a strategic tool in two aspects. On one hand, facilitates the patenting of our nationals overseas; as counterpart the foreigners obtain a much more easy access to patent in Chile. On the other hand, expedites the work of industrial property offices and improves the quality on granted patents.

This agreement concentrates a large interest from the Chilean innovators, expressed on the 48 patent applications at INAPI during the very first year of the enactment entry. Such figure is one of the highest at the Latin American level, during the first year of the enactment of this treaty.

Before this agreement, Chileans should make the patent application on every single country where they wanted to have protection, immediately after the first 12 months to its application in Chile; in that form, the invention still was considered a novelty, and if they would intend to use the PCT, Chileans should associate or find administrative loopholes.

Nowadays Chile is part of the PCT and national innovators can simply apply with an only solicitude at the National Institute of Industrial Property (INAPI), which will be considered as simultaneously applied in each of the 148 country members of this treaty.

This allows saving costs, because they are not required to make multiple translations on the application, nor undergo to diverse procedures and neither make payments on multiple currencies according to where they would like to protect. Today they can apply in Spanish, in a single procedure to be paid in Chilean pesos.

The PCT is a good example of globalization and internationalization of the intellectual property system. Its virtue resides in the enhancement of the international patenting and the cooperation of the industrial property offices, and at the same time it does it respecting the whole sovereignty of the member countries which can freely determine the patentability conditions and deciding whether an invention is finally patentable.

The PCT is a crucial tool to achieve the goals of the Ministry of Economy in Chile, about strengthening the institutional framework for intellectual and industrial protection, promoting the invention as well as patenting among Chilean scientists and entrepreneurs.

If the WTO intellectual property agreement in 1994, known as TRIPS or ADPIC, was probably the most transcendent milestone of the past century for substantive harmonization, the PCT was the equivalent on the matter of cooperation and infrastructure on the global patent system. So much so that Francis Gurry, current WIPO Director General, has called it the “backbone of the international patent system”.

Standardized technologies and essential patents align American and Brazilian Courts

In the world of mobile phones, there are technological standards that allow devices from different companies to talk to each other. Technically speaking, it is the interoperability between mobile phones. So when a company holds a patent to an invention that is part of standard technology, it has the option to declare it as essential to the standard. The other option is to keep the invention nonstandard and unique to only their mobile phones. However, what happens in practice is that most of these innovations end up being standardized.

For the essential patents not to become obstacles to this technology dissemination, international courts have developed rules limiting royalties to the terms considered fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory – the term FRAND – considering that these technologies, because they are standardized, should be used by everyone. The exception to this rule would be in the unlikely event of a company refuses to pay these reasonable royalties, in which case the patent holder could promote inhibitory actions. In Brazil, there was a recent case in which both Brazilian and North American justices applied these international rules to suspend a number of lawsuits brought by a famous Swedish company against a Chinese company.

What happened was that these companies were negotiating a global license for declared essential patents, and have also initiated arbitration proceedings in France and a lawsuit in the United States, with the specific purpose of fixing reasonable royalties for the use of standardized technologies, when the Swedish company, the patent holder, without waiting for the definition of the subject, proceeded to file a series of inhibitory actions against the Chinese company in several countries, including Brazil.

Making use of preliminary injunctions, the European company began to coerce the Asian company compromise in these international negotiations, while threatening to remove the Chinese company from the market. In Brazil, four inhibitory actions were filed.

In the four actions, injunctions have been granted ordering the Chinese company to cease commercialization and to withdrawal its mobile phones from the Brazilian market. The argument made by the Swedish company was simple: If the patented technology was standardized and essential for cell phones, it was obviously present in the devices of the Chinese company, meaning that, logically, these devices violated the patents of the Swedish group. However, the commitment to license these patents to all interested parties, assumed internationally by the Swedish company, when it chose to declare that their technology should be standardized, was never mentioned. Thus, initially the judges considered that this was a simple matter of patent infringement, when in fact, the question was more complex, in that the Swedish group on the one hand, had declared their technologies to being essential for the standard, pledging not to take injunctions against third parties, without first negotiating a license for the exploration of these key technologies, but on the other hand, ignored this commitment and filed court actions against the Chinese company without any royalties negotiation proposal, in Brazil.

After more than two years, the Brazilian courts, which originally had granted injunctions understanding that patent infringement would be obvious because it is a standardized technology, reviewed the issue in light of international rules and correctly changed their understanding.

Once the Courts understood the background of these actions was a global negotiation for reasonable royalties, and that the Swedish Company had opted to include its technologies in the international standard, it could not now refuse to license them under FRAND terms, and even worse take discriminatory action against one company before concluding the reasonable royalties negotiation, the 2nd Corporate Court of Rio de Janeiro revoked the previous injunctions and kept the cell phones in Brazil.

Following this same line, the US court went further and ordered the companies to interrupt any measure involving these essential patents, not only in America, but in all other countries, including Brazil, until that US court set what are the reasonable royalties to these patents.

Common sense prevailed, both in Brazilian Court and in the US Court, to the extent that if the Swedish company decided to standardize its technology, committing to license it globally on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, it cannot be accepted that they would take inhibitory measures while still discussing reasonable royalties for a global license.

This post was written by Eduardo da Gama Camara Junior and Rodrigo de Assis Torres. 

 

 

Intellectual Property is an intangible with significant economic potential

“Chile has built a balanced property system that seeks to protect the interests of creators and innovators, as well as users and society as a whole,” says Martin Correa, Head of the Intellectual Property Department of the General Directorate of International Economic Relations (Direcon) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Department coordinates and conveys Chile’s position on international negotiations before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Intellectual Property is precisely the focus of the Latin America Intellectual Property SME Helpdesk project, which belongs to the Directorate General for Research and Innovation (COSME Program) of the European Union. The Eurochile Foundation is a partner of this project.

The subject is highly relevant, since a wider knowledge and respect for intellectual property rights leads to improved opportunities for Chilean companies.

“Today, IP has been gaining importance, since it has been proven that it may be an intangible with a significant economic potential not only for consolidated and larger companies, but also for small and medium enterprises. In this sense, knowing the value of IP enables SMEs to value their trademarks and generate spin-offs when granting licenses,” states Correa.

“Additionally, having an invention patent, for example, can be a plus when applying for loans to continue the development of an SME or even for expanding. Finally, IP can encourage the sale of traditional niche products by granting geographical indications. They create communities among small producers of the same product by recognizing its added value. As you can see, being aware and knowing the economic potential of IP can allow SMEs to make better business decisions and to benefit from the profits IP can generate,” he adds.

– What is the state of Intellectual Property protection in Chile?

“The country has made great strides in recent years, introducing major changes to the intellectual property system, such as the enactment of Law 17,336 on Intellectual Property, the reform of Law 19,039 on Industrial Property and the creation of the National Industrial Property Institute (Inapi, in Spanish). There has also been progress in creating tools to bring people closer to IP through programs such as the origin seal and Inapi Proyecta, as well as in boosting the role of the intellectual rights keeper belonging to the Chilean Libraries, Archives and Museums Board (Dibam, in Spanish).”

– What are the pending issues in this regard?

“Chile has a strong intellectual property system with clear and strict rules, comparable to the standards of major international institutions that cover these issues, such as the WTO and the WIPO. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that new technologies and recent innovations in the digital environment pose new challenges not only for Chile, but for the international community. It should address the interaction between IP and these new developments.”

– What is Chile’s level of compliance regarding international agreements and obligations on this matter?

“Chile has fulfilled its international obligations on intellectual property. In this sense, the current institutional framework in Chile reflects the standards described in our free trade agreements (FTA). It even went beyond what was agreed on the FTAs. However, there are still some issues to be addressed internally, derived mainly from the FTA with the US. One example is complying with technological protection measures linked to copyright, which has not been addressed yet. Therefore, Direcon’s efforts have been instrumental in coordinating thematic working tables to address this issue internally in the near future.”

– What are the most common problems for a foreign company wishing to do business with Chile, in terms of IP?

“Even though the rules on intellectual property in Chile are relatively similar to those in most developed countries, there are some differences that must be taken into consideration when doing business. They have to do with the territorial nature of IP. In this regard, it is important to be aware of certain basics, such as the civilian origin of Chile’s legal tradition and the balance of our system when pondering the interests of creators and innovators, and the interests of users and society as a whole. They differ in each country. Therefore, it is indispensable to learn about the system as a whole in order to enjoy the economic benefits of IP in all its dimensions.”