News

After a long period of darkness on this subject, the BPTO has just released an official communication on how the Coexistence Agreements shall be treated. The former BPTO’s Guidelines for the Analysis of Trademarks (issued in May/1997) formally admitted that Coexistence Agreements excluded the application of the norm contained in Section 124, item XIX, of the Brazilian IP Law, which prohibits the registration of marks that are identical or similar to another previously registered for the same or related goods or services, being susceptible of causing confusion or association with the senior mark.

Notwithstanding the fact that this guideline has lasted for over 13 years, it has always been refuted by the BPTO Attorneys’ Office, under the allegation that the Agreement by itself could never override that statutory prohibition. During the discussions for the revision of the BPTO’s Guidelines for the Analysis of Trademarks, which final version was released in December 2010, the BPTO Attorneys’ Office

After a long period of darkness on this subject, the BPTO has just released an official communication on how the Coexistence Agreements shall be treated. The former BPTO’s Guidelines for the Analysis of Trademarks (issued in May/1997) formally admitted that Coexistence Agreements excluded the application of the norm contained in Section 124, item XIX, of the Brazilian IP Law, which prohibits the registration of marks that are identical or similar to another previously registered for the same or related goods or services, being susceptible of causing confusion or association with the senior mark.

Notwithstanding the fact that this guideline has lasted for over 13 years, it has always been refuted by the BPTO Attorneys’ Office, under the allegation that the Agreement by itself could never override that statutory prohibition. During the discussions for the revision of the BPTO’s Guidelines for the Analysis of Trademarks, which final version was released in December 2010, the BPTO Attorneys’ Office

On 20 July 2012, Law No. 12,689, of 19 July 2012, was published in the Federal Official Gazette. This law seeks to create generic veterinary medicinal products in the country and to establish rules concerning the marketing authorisation of such products to be applied by the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Supply (MAPA).

In brief, two new categories of veterinary medicinal products have been created in addition to the existing reference veterinary drugs: similar (“branded generic”) and generic medicinal products for veterinary use.

According to Law No. 12,689/12, a similar veterinary medicinal product shall mean a medicinal product which has the same active substance, the same concentration and pharmaceutical form as the reference medicinal product for veterinary use, but which excipients may or not be identical, always being identified by its trade mark. Law No. 12,689/12 has apparently not considered a similar veterinary medicinal product to be interchangeable with the re

Following our recent newsletter on ANVISA’s role in the examination of pharmaceutical patent applications, this is to briefly inform that the Brazilian PTO has started forwarding cases to ANVISA’s consent before substantive examination has begun, in accordance with the guidelines suggested by the Interministerial Working Group (GTI), through Ordinance No. 1,065, of 24 May 2012.

Please note, however, that neither ANVISA nor the Brazilian PTO has yet issued normative acts indicating whether the GTI’s guidelines suggested would actually be adopted and, in the affirmative, to what extent. Yet, the Brazilian PTO has claimed, in the accompanying letters sent to ANVISA with patent applic

As you may be aware, due to article 229-C of the Brazilian IP Law, as amended by Law No. 10,196/01, whenever a patent application claims a pharmaceutical product or process, consent from the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) is also required prior to granting the desired patent. This provision, however, has been the source of never-ending controversy and subject to growing attacks since it entered into effect in 2001.

The lack of statutory power of ANVISA to analyse patentability requirements of pharma applications was supported by the Attorney-General’s Office in legal opinions published in 2009 and 2011. Indeed, in their opinion, ANVISA should only make health-based assessments of applications sent for prior consent; prior consent should only be denied to applications in instances that granting the patents would pose health risks. How ANVISA would assess “health risks” on the basis of the information included in patent applications was left unanswered though.

In view of the slow pace of the Brazilian Trademark and Patent Office (BPTO) and the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) on the analysis of trademark and patent applications, over the last few years there has been a significant increase in the number of judicial cases seeking the acceleration of the examination of such applications.

In fact, several court decisions have ruled that if the application is pending for a long time before the BPTO or ANVISA, it is possible to file a writ of mandamus to redress an unreasonable delay.

Following the consensus among the international community about the importance of the development of green technologies in mitigating global climate change, national governments also came to acknowledge the relevance of patent granting procedures as a mechanism to promote green innovation.

Within this context, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office – INPI – will launch, as of this date of April 17, 2012, a pilot program involving “green patents”, for the purpose of prioritizing examination of patent applications related to environmentally friendly technologies, by reducing the time it will take for their examination to less than two years. The pilot program is quite limited as yet and only the first 5

Brazil chapter.

Regulatory Overview.

To explore further the subject of trade secrets and proprietary information, and specifically the issues raised around this subject in Brazil, Lawyer Monthly speaks to Elisabeth Kasznar Fekete, attorney at law, Partner at Momsen, Leonardos e Cia and head of the firm's São Paulo office. The firm assembles a highly specialized and qualified but also diversified team working in all Intellectual Property related matters – prosecution, enforcement and licensing IP rights. Cutting-edge legal knowledge with specialized technical expertise in the areas to which it is applied – civil engineering, mechanics, electronics, metallurgy, chemistry, medicine, biology, etc.

Legal framework

The growth of the Brazilian market and economy is parallelled by the increase of counterfeiting activities. The enforcement of IP rights involves planning, technology, intelligence, training and coordination, with support from a number of laws and treaties, as well as the relevant rules of the Federal Constitution, the Civil Code, the Criminal Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and administrative statutory instruments. The legal framework for anticounterfeiting includes:

• the Industrial Property Law (Law 9,279/96);

• the Copyright Law (Law 9,610/98); and

• the Software Law (Law 9,609/98).

In addition, Brazil is a signatory to the main international IP instruments, such as:

• the Paris Convention for the Protection

of Industrial Property (as reviewed in Stockholm in 1967);

• the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs);

• the Berne Convention f

Bedeutung und Vielschichtigkeit der brasilianischen gesetzlichen Vorschriften uber Arbeitnehmererfindungen werden in den einschlägigen Veröffentlichungen stets hervorgehoben. Der besondere Rang dieses Rechtsgebiets ist angesichts der gegenwärtigen industriellen Konjunktur, in der sie Meisen der wesentlichen Erfindungen aufgrund systematischer Forschungen in Industrie und Wissenschaft gemacht werden, nicht zu bestreinte.