The Peruvian judiciary provided a pleasant surprise recently, with its view of an appeal against a Peruvian Patent and Trademark Office (INDECOPI) resolution rejecting a trademark opposition case.
The case involved an opposition filed by one of our clients, who has a trademark registered in Peru under class 30, against a nearly identical Peruvian trademark application in class 32.
There is a relationship between the goods in classes 30 and 32, since products such as biscuits, bread, cookies and candies, covered by class 30, are sold in the same places as some of the goods protected by class 32 (cakes, for example). They are also consumed in similar situations, such as children’s parties.
The reason for the surprise is that, in most cases, the judiciary confirms INDECOPI’s second instance decisions, perhaps because of their ignorance of the relevant administrative rules—in this case, decision 486 of the Andean Community.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on firstname.lastname@example.org.
INDECOPI, food, trademark application