Tradenameprotectsmore

185 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
185
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tradenameprotectsmore

  1. 1. Intemational Law Office - Legal Newsletter Newsletters I Law Directory I Deals I News I Subscribe I Home Intelleetual Property • Brazil Trade Names Give More Proteetion than Trademarks Contríbuted by Moreira Lima, Royster & Ohno Advogados with Steel Hector & Davis LLP November 12 2001 The Superíor Court of Justíce has ruled that the owner of a trade name has legal grounds to oppose a trademark application even if the trademark does not compete dírectly wíth the trade name. The court ruled that trade name protectíon ís broader than trademark protectíon, which may not extend to goods ín dífferent classes. A trade name is a name under which a company conducts its business. It can also serve as a trademark if it meets the necessary requírements (ie, íf the corporation makes use of the trade name in the course of busíness). A trade name has exclusive trademark rights only if it is used as a trademark. In the case at hand, Maeda S/A Agroindustrial was established in 1976 as Agropem Agro Pecuária Maeda and applíed for regístratíon of the trademark Maeda Agropem ín the same year. Twenty years later Vírbac do Brasíl Indústría e Comércío applied for registratíon of the trademark Agropen. The lower court granted Maedas exclusivíty ríghi. The Court of Justíce reversed the decísion, ruling that a trademark must be consídered to be well-known in order for ít to enjoy protectíon throughout dífferent market sectors. Maeda appealed agaínst the decísion, c1aiming a Iíkelihood of confusion due to the assocíation and the simílaríty of the target markets. The appellate court granted Medea the exclusive ríght to the trademark Agropem and ruled that Vírbacs trademark applicatíon be cancelled. The decision is based on Sectíon 8 of the Paris Convention, accordíng to which trade names need not be registered ín order to be protected throughout ali member states. The fact that Maeda had changed its trade name díd not weaken its ríghts. For further information on this topic p/ease contact Erica Aoki at Moreira Lima, Royster & Ohno Advogados with Stee/ Hector & Davis LLP by te/ephone (+55 11 2832077) or by fax (+55 11 283 2078) or by email (eaoki@steelhector.com). The materíals contained on this websíte are for general informatíon purposes only and are subject to the dísclaímer @J Print Version O Send to a colleague X Subscribe Newsletters I Law Directory I Deals I News I Subscribe I Homehttp://www.intemationallawoffice.com/Id. cfm?N ewsIetters_Ref=425 8 11/6/0

×