{"id":14934,"date":"2024-10-11T18:40:37","date_gmt":"2024-10-11T23:40:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/omcabogados.com.pe\/?p=14934"},"modified":"2024-11-13T12:03:01","modified_gmt":"2024-11-13T17:03:01","slug":"mas-alla-de-las-palabras-criterios-para-determinar-la-descriptividad-de-un-signo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/omcabogados.com.pe\/en\/beyond-the-words-criteria-for-determining-the-descriptiveness-of-a-sign\/","title":{"rendered":"BEYOND THE WORDS: Criteria for determining the descriptiveness of a sign"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Distinctiveness is a fundamental concept in the field of intellectual property law. It refers to the ability of a trademark to differentiate a product or service from those of other companies in the market. This quality is essential for establishing a unique identity in the minds of consumers and for protecting the exclusive rights of use of the trademark.<\/p>

One of the main factors that threaten the distinctiveness of a trademark is the descriptive denominations. According to the jurisprudence of the Andean Tribunal , these are denominations that exclusively inform about the characteristics or properties of the product, such as its quality, quantity, functions, ingredients, size, value, destination, etc.[1]<\/span><\/a>, son aquellas que informan exclusivamente sobre las caracter\u00edsticas o propiedades del producto tales como su calidad, cantidad, funciones, ingredientes, tama\u00f1o, valor, destino, etc.<\/p>

On the other hand, the same Tribunal also establishes that while signs exclusively made up of descriptive denominations may generate completely distinctive signs when combined with others elements, the owner will not be able to prevent other entrepreneurs from using these descriptive denominations. In other words, the owner owner of a trademark that includes descriptive denominations will have limited means of defense to protect it against third parties because such denominations are part of the public domain.<\/p>

It is precisely this limitation on the exclusive right that underscores the importance of establishing the criteria for determining when a denomination is descriptive or not. Since an incorrect application of these criteria could result in either the registration of denominations that are necessary for the identification and advertising of products and services in the commercial market, thus affecting free competition, or allowing the coexistence of similar trademarks that could confuse consumers.<\/p>

En relaci\u00f3n con este \u00faltimo punto, existe un ejemplo reciente que se present\u00f3 en el caso de la marca \u00abKARISSA BY YG\u00bb vs \u00abCARISSA LURI\u00bb, el cual fue llevado ante la Sala Especializada en Propiedad Intelectual del INDECOPI. En este caso se resalta, la complejidad que implica establecer el car\u00e1cter descriptivo de un signo, el cual va m\u00e1s all\u00e1 del concepto que evoca la palabra.<\/p>

CASE BACKGROUND<\/strong><\/p>

El conflicto comenz\u00f3 cuando el titular de la marca \u00abCARISSA LURI\u00bb present\u00f3 una oposici\u00f3n contra el registro de la marca \u00abKARISSA BY YG\u00bb, ambas en la clase 3 de la Clasificaci\u00f3n Internacional de Niza, que incluye productos cosm\u00e9ticos y de limpieza. El oponente argument\u00f3 tanto la semejanza fon\u00e9tica de los signos, as\u00ed como la identidad y vinculaci\u00f3n entre sus productos.<\/p>

Por su parte, el solicitante defendi\u00f3 que su marca pose\u00eda elementos adicionales distintivos, como el uso del t\u00e9rmino \u00abBY YG\u00bb, que en conjunto con el nombre \u00abKARISSA\u00bb y el dise\u00f1o gr\u00e1fico de la marca, la diferencian claramente de \u00abCARISSA LURI\u00bb. Adem\u00e1s, argumentaron que no exist\u00eda evidencia de confusi\u00f3n efectiva en el mercado y que los productos que ambas marcas cubren no est\u00e1n relacionados directamente, lo que minimiza a\u00fan m\u00e1s el riesgo de confusi\u00f3n entre los consumidores.<\/p>

En primera instancia, mediante Resoluci\u00f3n N\u00b0 5369-2022\/CSD-INDECOPI, la Comisi\u00f3n de Signos Distintivos del INDECOPI determin\u00f3 que pese que s\u00ed exist\u00eda identidad y vinculaci\u00f3n entre los productos, la denominaci\u00f3n \u201cCARISSA\u201d, constitu\u00eda un elemento descriptivo, en la medida que hac\u00eda referencia a una fruta, informando as\u00ed de manera directa que ser\u00eda un ingrediente de los productos que distingu\u00edan a las marcas, lo que no fue tomado en cuenta al momento de realizar el examen comparativo. Esto dio como resultado que se determine la inexistencia de semejanza entre los signos, puesto que el examen comparativo solo se realiz\u00f3 entre los elementos denominativos adicionales LURI (marca base de oposici\u00f3n) y BY YG (marca solicitada), los cuales electivamente son diferentes, de manera que la oposici\u00f3n fue declarada infundada y se otorg\u00f3 el registro de la marca solicitada.<\/p>

The opponent filed appeal against this decision, primarily arguing that the denomination \"CARISSA\" was not descriptive, because even though there is a fruit with that name, it was not native of our country, making it practically unknown for the average consumer, and there was no evidence that the mentioned fruit was used as an essential ingredient in productos of class 03.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>

DECISION OF THE CHAMBER AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE DESCRIPTIVENESS OF A SIGN<\/strong><\/p>

Through Resolution N\u00b0 455-2024\/TPI-INDECOPI, the Specialized Intellectual Property Chamber of INDECOPI, aligning with our position, established that the denomination \"CARISSA\" indeed refers to a type of fruit native of Africa but it was not used for the manufacture of cosmetics or cleaning products of class 03 but rather for making sweets, jams, and jellies. Therefore, for the average consumer, it would be percieved as denomination without meaning, since it does not directly refer to the characteristics of the products distinguished by the conflicting signs. The chamber then proceeded to conduct the comparative examination, this time considering the questioned denominations, which concluded that they were phonetically similar, an undeniable fact, and ultimately upheld the appeal, revoking the first-instance resolution and denying the trademark application.<\/p>

One of the most important aspects of this decision is that the chamber not only considered the fact that the denomination \"CARISSA\" refers to a fruit but also its place of origin and its applications in the market, factors that the commission in the first instance chose to ignore.<\/p>

It is also noteworthy that the chamber took the initiative to conduct a more in-depth investigation into the denomination \"CARISSA\" since it cited sources explaining the use of this fruit in food products[2]<\/span><\/a>and not in cosmetics and cleaning products of class 03, as the commission wrongly indicated.<\/p>

CONCLUSIONS<\/strong><\/p>