Non-existence of trademark infringement on the basis of peaceful coexistence in the market
On 21 March 2024, the Superior Court ruled in favor of Evacol S.A.S. in the case of Crocs Inc. v. Evacol S.A.S. This case from the Andean Community of Justice highlights the importance of timely action against trademark infringement.
The court established that a risk of confusion is essential for trademark infringement to occur. This means peaceful coexistence of similar trademarks in the same market for a reasonable period, absent unfair competition, and with additional elements demonstrating a lack of consumer confusion, can prevent a finding of infringement.
This case underscores the value of taking swift and appropriate legal measures to protect intellectual property rights. Allowing prolonged coexistence in the market weakens the argument of confusion, potentially hindering successful trademark infringement claims.
WIPO adopts Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge
The first treaty on genetic resources and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities was adopted by WIPO on 24 May.
This treaty imposes an obligation on contracting states to require applicants for patents that rely on traditional knowledge and genetic resources to disclose their origin, whether it is the originating country or community.
Through this treaty, WIPO demonstrates its commitment to innovation, inclusion, and recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples. Under this treaty, contracting states must adopt mechanisms to ensure the effective disclosure of the origin of this knowledge and resources.
Judge rules on use of paintings in audiovisual works
Recently, the judge revoked a condemn against an audio-visual producer for the unauthorized use of three paintings in a series. This decision is important as it may open a door to more flexible criteria in the clearance of audiovisual productions.
The judge implemented the criteria of incidental use that the Court of Justice of the Andean Community mentioned in the Prejudicial Interpretation of this case, in which they established that the judge must determine if it was intentionally decided that the painting was part of the scene and fulfilled a role in the plot, or if it was simply part of the environment incidentally.
The Judge decided that as the paintings were just part of the scenario but were not mentioned in the dialogue, the use of such paintings is incidental.
Spanish version
