Region: Peru

New criteria for admissibility of motions for reconsideration established

In opposition proceedings involving the marks AJI-NO-BELL’S and AJI-NO-MOTO, the IP Chamber of the Administrative Court of INDECOPI has determined new criteria for the admissibility of motions for reconsideration. The court found that the Trademark Office had erred in qualifying the opponent's challenge as a motion for reconsideration.

13 September 2010

Ex officio border measures implemented

Pursuant to its obligations under the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the Peruvian government has implemented <i>ex officio</i> border measures. Among other things, if Customs has reasons to presume that certain goods are counterfeit, pirated or confusingly similar to goods protected by IP rights, it may order the suspension of clearance of the goods.

26 March 2010

Supreme Decree on border measures published

Supreme Decree 003-2009-EF, which approves border control measures for the protection of copyright and trademarks, has been published. Among other things, the Supreme Decree deals with the long-awaited implementation of a customs registry of owners of copyright and trademark rights. In addition, IP rights owners are now entitled to apply to Customs for the suspension of clearance of suspected pirate or counterfeit goods.

06 March 2009

Trademark Office held to have exceeded its competence

The Administrative Court has overturned a decision of the Trademark Office in which the latter had dismissed Cementos Lima SA’s opposition against the registration of the mark LADRILLOS FORTE (and design). Among other things, the court held that the Copyright Office is the only authority competent to determine whether a specific sign or mark infringes the copyright of a third party.

09 December 2008

New decree on border control measures published

Legislative Decree 1092/2008, which introduces border control measures for the protection of copyrights, trademark rights and related rights, has been published. Among other things, the Customs Administration may now carry out border control measures on its own initiative where it has reasonable grounds to suspect that certain goods are counterfeit or pirated.

28 July 2008

Variation of the UDRP to be adopted

NIC.PE, the registry responsible for the organization of the Peruvian country-code top-level domain, '.pe', has changed its domain name dispute resolution procedure from arbitration to a variation of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The new procedure will be administered by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre.

07 April 2008

Concept of use in cancellation actions clarified

The Administrative Court has reversed a decision of the Trademark Office that ordered the cancellation of the trademark FAMILIA on the grounds of non-use. Among other things, the court held that a trademark will be cancelled only where use of the mark is fraudulent or fictitious. It is the first time that the Administrative Court has defined the concept of use.

08 February 2008

US Senate approves free trade agreement with Peru

The US Senate has approved the text of the free trade agreement between Peru and the United States. Peru must implement significant amendments to its trademark law in order to comply with the requirements of the agreement. Among other things, it must establish a system for the electronic filing, processing, registration and maintenance of trademarks.

15 January 2008


The Administrative Court has upheld a Trademark Office decision refusing to register the service mark MADE IN SINGAPORE AUTHENTIC ASIAN CUISINE for restaurant services on the grounds that it lacked distinctiveness. The court agreed that although the mark is in English, it is descriptive of the geographical origin of the services.

26 November 2007

FINLANDIA is distinctive for vodka, court rules

In a case involving the well-known FINLANDIA trademark, the Administrative Court has overturned a decision of the Trademark Office to reject the mark on the grounds that it was geographically misleading. The court held that Finland is not the only country in the world that produces vodka (one of the products to which the mark applies) and that consumers would consider the mark to refer to a business rather than a country.

20 July 2007

Unlock unlimited access to all WTR content