By Gabriel Francisco Leonardos

This Q&A gives a high level overview of trade mark disputes, including how trade mark infringement is assessed; unregistered trade marks; invalidation proceedings; … Trade mark Litigation in Brazil: Overview

Our partner Gabriel Leonardos and our lawyer Paulo Bianco published an article “When art is usable or wearable: works of applied art … When art is usable or wearable: works of applied art in the light of the Brazilian framework

The Q&A gives a high level overview of key issues including patents, trade marks, competition law, patent licensing, generic entry, abuse of dominance and parallel imports.

A Q&A guide to medicinal product regulation and product liability law in Brazil.

Advertising and Marketing seeks to provide local answers to international questions concerning advertising and marketing law. Chapters provide expert advice on the legislation and regulation of advertising and marketing, including the legislative processes arising from advertising disputes and challenges, the regulation of misleading advertising and the control, prohibition and restrictions in place on certain type of goods and services and to certain audiences, regulations affecting direct and indirect marketing and promotion, and up-to-date analysis of social media and the latest advertising trends.

Three major developments in Brazil suggest the country is entering an exciting era for IP owners. Gabriel Francisco Leonardos and Pedro Vilhena of Kasznar Leonardos report.

April 12, 2017 was an unusual day for the Brazilian Intellectual Property System. The Brazilian Patent Office (BPO) announced 3 good news for IP owners.

 It will come into force next Thursday (November 24, 2016) a new resolution issued by CADE (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica), the Brazilian antitrust authority, that redefines the rules for the submission of “associative contracts” for prior approval.

The Superintendency of the Brazilian antitrust authority (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica – CADE) has recommended the sanctioning of three major automobile manufacturers for infringing the economic order on grounds of an alleged abuse of intellectual

property rights.

Getting the Deal Through: Advertising & Marketing / 2016

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through: Advertising & Marketing 2016, (published in May 2016; contributing editor: Rick Kurnit, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC) For further information please visit www.gettingthedealthrough.com.

Kasznar Leonardos Advogados' litigation team, specialized

in Intellectual Property matters, discussed the concrete

implementation of the new Code of Civil Procedure

(effective as of March 18, 2016) in a workshop held in the

São Paulo offices, on March 4 and 5, marking the closing

of a profound cycle of studies on the subject.

Brazilian law requires that international know-how agreements must be previously registered before the BPTO – Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, in order for Brazilian companies to be allowed to remit payments abroad.  Moreover, the BPTO of registration also enables Brazilian companies to treat the payment as an “operational expense” for corporate income tax purposes, among other effects.

According to the law, there is no doubt that know-how agreements are submitted to this kind of proceedings. However, the law is not clear concerning agreements for rendering technical assitance services, since, in these cases, the technology transfer may, or may not be present.

In the trial of Special Appeal # 1.512.647 (decided on the 13th of May and published on the 5th of August), the Superior Court of Justice (in charge of standardizing the jurisprudence in Brazilian Courts) provided some guidance on liability of ISP in case of copyright infringement – an issue that was not codified by the Civil Basis for the Internet (“Marco Civil”). In the case at stake, a video producer filed a lawsuit against Google demanding the removal of several Orkut communities that were offering for sale a range of unauthorized copies of educational videos. The producer also requested the payment of damages. According to the producer, Google failed to remove the Orkut[1] communities after receiving a cease and desist letter, whereas Google alleged that such C&D letter did not inform the URLs of the infringing pages.

The Special Appeal was lodged by Google against a decision rendered by the State Court of Appeals of Minas Gerais[2]. This decision ordered the company (i) to pay damages to the producer in an amount to be fixed by an Expert or, in case that was not feasible, in accordance with article 103 of Brazilian Copyright Act[3]; and (ii) to remove the infringing pages. In brief, Google alleged that the company company could not comply with the Court order, as the producer did not inform the URLs of the infringing pages. Moreover, the company argued that it was a case of subjective liability and Goggle did not perform any activity that was deemed as copyright infringement.

Although this case happened before the Civil Basis for the Internet entered in force, the Reporting Justice Luís Felipe Salomão understood that it was desirable to render a decision that was in line with the principles enshrined by that Act. Therefore, he confirmed that it was a case of subjective liability, and underlined that, since the matter was not codified by the Civil Basis for the Internet, the Brazilian Copyright Act applies.

[1] A social network that was owned by Google.

[2] A State in Southeast Brazil.

[3] That establishes a presumption of selling of 3,000 (three thousand) infringing copies.

The Superintendency of the Brazilian antitrust authority (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica – CADE) has dismissed a case brought against the holder of essential patents related to an international standard in cell phone technology. According to the

bureau, there was no infringement of the economic order concerning the abuse of intellectual property rights.

CADE's Superintendency is the first federal instance to analyze acts of economic concentration, such as mergers and acquisitions, and the occurrence of infringements of the constitutional economic order. CADE, the national antitrust watchdog, is encharged with enforcing the constitutional economic principles, such as free enterprise, freedom of competition, social role of property, consumer protection and the restraining of abusive behavior.

In the present case, the patentee of the international standard cell phone technology was accused of sham litigation and patent misuse, since it had sued the denouncing company, which tried to obtain the due licenses, for patent infringement.

Practical Law – Life Sciences / 2015