Search results

Selected filters:

Portfolio Management

Article type



48 results found for your search

Sort options
06 October 2016

Partial cancellation for non-use of registered trademarks

The Peru Administrative Court of Appeals has issued a resolution constituting a Legal Precedent of Mandatory Observance regarding the criteria to be used by trademark office examiners when analysing a cancellation action for non-use.

03 August 2016

An IP marketing revolution? Changing attitudes to marketing in Latin American law firms

With an increasingly competitive IP legal market in Latin America, law firms are having to adapt and grow their marketing activity to stand out from the crowd. While little attention has been paid to marketing strategies in the past, today sees significant investment being made to effectively cut through the cluttered IP market. This week, the WTR 1000 research team looks at how Latin American IP law firms, big and small, have evolved their marketing in recent years.

07 December 2015

Nestlé applies for registration of yellow colour mark for Class 30 goods

Nestlé has recently filed an application for the registration of a colour trademark, consisting of the colour yellow within an outline, to cover ice creams and frozen desserts, among other related goods, in Class 30. Applications for colour marks are rare in Peru, even though such marks are allowed by the trademark legislation.

11 November 2015

Electronic publication of trademark applications likely to reduce registration costs

Legislative Decree No 1212, which reinforces the mechanisms for the elimination of bureaucratic barriers, has recently been published. With respect to trademarks, the decree states that, once the examiner has verified that an application fulfils the formal requirements for registration, the Trademark Office will publish - only once - that application in the Electronic Gazette. It is expected that, once the new system has been implemented, the total costs for registering a trademark in Peru will decrease.

23 June 2015

adidas obtains registration of 'three-stripe' mark based on secondary meaning

adidas AG's battle to register its 'three-stripe' figurative and position trademark in Peru, which lasted for over 15 years, has come to an end. The Administrative Court of Appeals recognised that the 'three-stripe' mark had acquired a secondary meaning and allowed the registration of the mark under Article 135 of Andean Community Decision 486.

12 June 2015

Name of comedy film and stand-up show held to be notorious

Carlos Alcantara, the producer and creator of the stand-up comedy show and film Asu Mare, has successfully obtained the cancellation of the trademark ASU MARE in Class 16. Among other things, the Trademark Office found that ASU MARE was notorious for services in Class 41, and that the mark had been registered in Class 16 in bad faith with the intention of benefiting unfairly from the notoriety of the ASU MARE mark.

01 June 2015

Andean Community court provides guidelines on likelihood of confusion

In a case involving adidas and Representaciones Herov SRL, the Court of Justice of the Andean Community has issued a preliminary interpretation following a request by a Peruvian court. Among other things, the Court of Justice stated that, once a trademark has been found to be notorious, there is no need to analyse whether the goods covered by the conflicting marks are related or not, or to discuss the rule of specialty of trademarks.

29 October 2014

Court rejects coexistence agreement between Nissan and GM

The Administrative Court of Appeals has rejected a coexistence agreement between Nissan and General Motors and, consequently, refused Nissan's trademark application for NP300. The court held that, even though the parties had entered into a coexistence agreement, consumers might be confused as the marks NP300 and N300 are similar and cover the same goods in Class 12.

02 September 2014

Counterfeiter's registration for confusingly similar mark cancelled

The Peruvian Trademark Office has ordered the cancellation of the stylised trademark MIROCA M on the ground that it was confusingly similar to the stylised trademarks WILSON and W, registered in the name of Wilson Sporting Goods Co. When goods bearing the MIROCA M had been seized, the owner of the goods had sought to rely on the fact that she held a valid trademark registration.

13 September 2010

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.

09 December 2008

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.

08 February 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.

26 November 2007


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.

20 July 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.

14 May 2007

Coexistence agreement issues clarified

The Supreme Court, on judicial review of an administrative decision refusing a trademark registration, has clarified the rules on coexistence agreements in Article 158 of Legislative Decree 823. Among other things, the court noted that when an administrative authority objects to a coexistence agreement during an examination proceeding, it must show that the general interest of the consumer will be affected by the registration.