Experience

Consumers can determine the source of a product by the way distinctive elements are consistently placed in the goods. While caselaw develops for protection of these non-traditional marks, brand owners struggle to protect them in developing countries. Read on to find out if Ecuador has a position on protecting position marks.

Los consumidores pueden determinar el origen empresarial de un producto por la forma en la que ciertos elementos distintivos han sido utilizados consistentemente y la posición en el producto. Al desarrollarse la jurisprudencia sobre marcas no tradicionales, los propietarios de estas marcas tienen problemas en obtener protección correcta. ¿Cuál es la posición del Ecuador sobre marcas de posición?

Read more ...

ECUADOR. Intellectual Property Appeal Board deemed proving continuous and good faith use is mandatory in order to claim previous rights over a trade name.

On August 27, 2020, the Intellectual Property Appeal Board in Ecuador confirmed a decision that rejected the registration of LA RADIO REDONDA + LOGO in International Class 38. Applicant, RADIODIFUSORA PARAISO RADIALPA SA, failed to prove continuous and good faith use of a confusingly similar trade name.

Read more ...

Congratulations to our clients on their registration anniversaries and for obtaining their registration certificates in 2019.

We wish you a Hapy and Prosperous 2020!

 

Read more ...

 #Hashtags protected as trademarks have been arising uncertainty worldwide, Manchester United Limited opposed to the registration of #WE ARE UNITED EC.

Read more ...

A North American company with operations in Central America invested US $150 Million in cellphone towers and infrastructure. 

Read more ...

In Consolidated Artists B.V. v. Marroquinera S.A. the IP Office held that a combination of two registered marks resulting in a confusingly similar mark is not subject to registration.

Read more ...

SPEEDO Holdings B.V. filed an opposition against a local textile manufacturer who seeked protection for a similar boomerang device. The IP Office decided that even though the counterparty set out very detailed differences between the designs, the examination needed to see the marks as a whole, from the consumer's point of view, and rejected the application.

Read more ...