News

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.

During the last BIO International Convention, Anderson Ribeiro, Partner at Kasznar Leonardos, spoke to bioBr Magazine about the recent regulatory framework for the Brazilian Pharmaceutical sector.

This article originally appeared on bioBR Magazine.

In a decision published on March 3, 2017, the 4th Chamber of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice provided the criteria to decide cases in which identical marks are registered by different owners as domain names and trademarks (Recurso Especial nº. 1466212).

This is the sixth edition of the IAM Patent 1000 – The World's Leading Patent Professionals, a guide that identifies leading firms and patent professionals around the world. Kasznar Leonardos is once again ranked in the gold category of the guide, positioning itself among the market leaders.

With the aim of expanding the office's operations and reinforcing its growth strategy, we announce the arrival of the lawyer Fernanda Magalhães, who will lead an important area for the development of KL: Marketing & Entertainment Law.

Kasznar Leonardos was featured in the ranking Innovation – Technology and Intellectual Property 2017, released by the Leaders League. The firm was classified in 8 categories, having 11 partners mentioned in the publication. 

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.

Further to our newsletter 12/16, please be informed that the Brazilian Patent Office issued on 1.March 2017 the Resolution No. 179 revoking Resolution 174, which was addressed in said previous newsletter.

After the ratifications of 2/3 of WTO (World Trade Organization) members, article 31 bis was formally brought into the text of TRIPs Agreement. Such provision aims at allowing compulsory licenses for export in order to meet the needs of countries with insufficient or no capacity of manufacturing drugs. It is a direct result of Doha Declaration on TRIPs Agreement and Public Health of 2001, which aims at striking a balance between IP protection and access to health care.

The guide, which is already in its 7th edition, identifies and highlights, through qualitative research, the firms and leading trademark experts in 72 jurisdictions. 

A fter a very long wait, the Brazilian Patent Office finally published the Examination Guidelines for computer-implemented inventions, which went into effect on 6 December 2016, date on which they were published in the Brazilian Official Gazette. The guidelines underwent a process of public consultation and the final version introduced no relevant divergence from the draft document that had been distributed. A translation of the guidelines is enclosed.

The Brazilian Patent Office’s (BPO) “green patents” prioritized examination proceeding, which was initiated in April 2012 and has been yearly renovated for four consecutive years, has now been reissued on a permanent basis via Resolution No. 175 as per publication made in Brazilian Official Gazette No. 2396 of December 6, 2016.

Resolution No. 174 published by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office on 6 December 2016 established new rules for Brazilian National Phases of PCT applications regarding assignment of priority rights and the assignment of the application.

Currently, there is a relevant discussion on what may be considered as public performance, particularly with relation to streaming activities. While there is a pending case before the Superior Court of Justice (Special Appeal REsp 1.559.264) where it is discussed whether streaming services may be classified as public performances, the lower Courts are already having their saying in this matter.