Bibliographic citations
This is an automatically generated citacion. Modify it if you see fit
Reyes, M., (2021). Expedientes N° 15676-2011-0-1801-JR-CI-01 / N° 676684-2016 [Trabajo de suficiencia profesional, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)]. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/655736
Reyes, M., Expedientes N° 15676-2011-0-1801-JR-CI-01 / N° 676684-2016 [Trabajo de suficiencia profesional]. PE: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC); 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/655736
@misc{renati/394903,
title = "Expedientes N° 15676-2011-0-1801-JR-CI-01 / N° 676684-2016",
author = "Reyes Chuquiure, Miguel Angel",
publisher = "Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)",
year = "2021"
}
Title: Expedientes N° 15676-2011-0-1801-JR-CI-01 / N° 676684-2016
Authors(s): Reyes Chuquiure, Miguel Angel
Keywords: Derecho marcario; Derecho de marcas; Registro de marca; Riesgo de confusión; Trademark law; Trade mark; Risk of confusion
OCDE field: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.00; https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01
Issue Date: 2-Feb-2021
Institution: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)
Abstract: En este presente informe se abordará el Expediente Administrativo N° 676684-2016 en donde se analizará la oposición marcaria dentro de la normativa del derecho de marcas. Empieza el presente caso cuando el señor Andrew Michell Olivares solicita el registro de una marca denominada “Candelaria Pilsener”, la cual para el correcto registro se presentó todos los documentos y se realizó los pagos correspondientes. Posteriormente a ello, la empresa Unión de Cervecerías Backus y Johnston, titular de la marca “Pilsen Callao”, presenta su escrito de oposición marcaria toda vez que podría causar riesgo de confusión a los consumidores.
En ese sentido, habiendo una oposición marcaria compete a la Comisión de signos distintivos del INDECOPI evaluar y resolver sobre el asunto materia de conflicto. Esta autoridad resuelve, entre otros, declarar fundada la oposición interpuesta y denegar el registro de marca. Ahora bien, teniendo por rechazada el registro de “Candelaria Pilsener”, el señor Michell presenta recurso de apelación bajo el principal fundamento de que el término “Pilsener” es solo una expresión descriptiva que no debería de considerarse para el examen comparativo entre ambas marcas.
Finalmente, el Tribunal de Defensa de la competencia y de la Propiedad Intelectual resuelve, entre otros, revocar la resolución de primera instancia y otorgar el registro de la marca “Candelaria Pilsener”.
This report will address Administrative File No. 676684-2016 where trademark opposition will be analyzed within the regulations of trademark law. The present case begins when Mr. Andrew Michell Olivares requests the registration of a trademark called “Candelaria Pilsener”, which for the correct registration all the documents were presented and the corresponding payments were made. Subsequently, the company Unión de Cervecerías Backus y Johnston, owner of the "Pilsen Callao" trademark, presents its trademark opposition statement since it could cause a risk of confusion to consumers. In this sense, if there is a trademark opposition, it is the responsibility of the INDECOPI Distinctive Signs Commission to evaluate and resolve the matter of conflict. This authority resolves, among others, to declare the opposition filed founded and to deny the registration of the trademark. Now, considering that the registration of “Candelaria Pilsener” was rejected, Mr. Michell filed an appeal on the main grounds that the term “Pilsener” is only a descriptive expression that should not be considered for the comparative examination between both brands. Finally, the Court for the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property resolves, among others, to revoke the first instance decision and grant the registration of the "Candelaria Pilsener" trademark.
This report will address Administrative File No. 676684-2016 where trademark opposition will be analyzed within the regulations of trademark law. The present case begins when Mr. Andrew Michell Olivares requests the registration of a trademark called “Candelaria Pilsener”, which for the correct registration all the documents were presented and the corresponding payments were made. Subsequently, the company Unión de Cervecerías Backus y Johnston, owner of the "Pilsen Callao" trademark, presents its trademark opposition statement since it could cause a risk of confusion to consumers. In this sense, if there is a trademark opposition, it is the responsibility of the INDECOPI Distinctive Signs Commission to evaluate and resolve the matter of conflict. This authority resolves, among others, to declare the opposition filed founded and to deny the registration of the trademark. Now, considering that the registration of “Candelaria Pilsener” was rejected, Mr. Michell filed an appeal on the main grounds that the term “Pilsener” is only a descriptive expression that should not be considered for the comparative examination between both brands. Finally, the Court for the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property resolves, among others, to revoke the first instance decision and grant the registration of the "Candelaria Pilsener" trademark.
Link to repository: http://hdl.handle.net/10757/655736
Discipline: Derecho
Grade or title grantor: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC). Facultad de Derecho
Grade or title: Abogado
Register date: 29-Apr-2021
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License