|
Bogotá, D.C. 010/ Matter
Reference 02100584
Procedure
113
Proceeding 440
Pages 004 Dear
sirs: We refer to your telefax received
in our offices on November 11, 2002, whereby you raise several questions in concern
with the application of the law regarding industrial property matters, to inform
you the following: 1. Andean
Communitarian Law In Colombia, the
subject concerning industrial property is regulated today by Decision 486 of the
Commission of the Andean Community, [1] which is part of the
juridical ruling of the Andean Community
[2] , by virtue of what it is provided in article 1 of the Treaty Creating
the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement, amended by the Cochabamba Protocol.
[3] This Decision regulates
the subject integrally and accordingly, the domestic legislation of each of the
member countries of the Andean Community, can only regulate those matters not
dealt by the same. A very important
point which must be stressed with regard to Decision 486 (and in general all the
previous Decisions pertaining to industrial property), is that, in its article
276 establishes that, those issues concerning industrial property matters which
are not included within the same, shall be regulated by the domestic legislations
of the member countries, aspect in relation to which the Andean Court of Justice
has pointed out that, since the development of the communitarian law by the national
legislation is exceptional, to such development applies the rule of the "indispensable
complement", according to which, the expedition of national rules on matters
already regulated by the Decision is not possible, unless these are necessary
for its correct application. [4] In
this sense, for the domestic legislation to be valid, it is required that it focuses
on issues not regulated by the community, fact which results obvious within the
spirit and the natural and logical sense of expression "common regime of treatment"
that uses article 52 [5] of the Cartagena Agreement. The opposite situation
would generate the inexistence of a unique and uniform regime for the subregion
-which is the main purpose of the law of integration- as a result of permitting
its modification, distortion and addition in one way or another by the national
legislations of the member countries. In
this order of ideas, if national laws are contrary to communitarian regulations
they do not apply, since the last ones prevail. This is the phenomena known as
"preemption", according to which the international ruling "holds a kind
of occupation of the field with displacement of the rules that occupied it before,
which consequently become non applicable as far as they result incompatible with
the provisions of the communitarian law" [6] . The preemption phenomena, operates
not only concerning regulations which are anterior to the supranational ruling
and that are displaced by it, but also regarding posterior dispositions, considering
that a provision of a lesser category cannot be contrary to a disposition with
a superior level. [7] Finally,
with regard to Decision 486, it is important to point out that, the only competent
authority to interpret its provisions is the Andean Court of Justice,
[8] according to the treaty that creates it and, above all because,
this assures a uniform application of the supranational ruling within the Andean
Community. 2. Trademarks 2.1.
Attributive system of acquisition of rights upon a trademark In
the member countries of the Andean Community and therefore in Colombia, although
the use of trademarks is free, without the need of counting for such purpose with
a registration, it must be precised that, such use shall not be protected and
consequently, any third party will be entitled also to use the sign, since only
the registration grants on behalf of its owner,
[9] the right to use the trademark in and exclusive and excludent manner.
In other words, the rights to use the trademark only by its owner or third parties
duly authorized by him and, the right to prevent its use by third parties not
authorized to do so, is solely conferred by the registration. [10] 1.2.
Range of a trademark registration As
it is established in the Andean regulations, the registration of a trademark and
its protection, extends only to the goods or services specified in the application
and does not confer to his titleholder, any expectation or right to obtain the
registration of the same sign to distinguish other goods or services. In
this sense, the Andean Court of Justice, in process 12-IP-96 stated that, "A trademark
cannot protect all the products in the universe; trademark protection is limited
to the goods for which his owner has referred to or claimed in his application
and, within these, with similar or identical but not with all the rest. This limitation
to the protection constitutes what by the doctrine is denominated as "the specialty"
that, reflects in the definition or concept which uses article 81 of Decision
344". (Non official translation) 2.
Trademark registration procedure 2.1.
Under Decision 85 of the Commission of the Cartagena Agreement [11] The
following are the stages which took place under Decision 85, within a trademark
registration procedure: ·
The procedure began with the filing, before the de registro ante la Oficina de
Marcas, con la información y anexos señalados en los artículos 60 y 61 de la Decisión
85. Recibida la solicitud la Oficina
de Marcas procedía a efectuar el examen de cumplimiento de requisitos legales
de presentación y de registrabilidad del signo como marca, esta última concerniente
a la observancia de las condiciones establecidas en los artículos 56 a 59 de la
Decisión 85. Si se llenaban estos
requisitos, o si los mismos habían sido complementados previo requerimiento o
respuesta a la advertencia de irregistrabilidad, se procedía a la publicación
de un extracto de la solicitud en la Gaceta de la Propiedad Industrial, medio
de publicidad determinado en la legislación Interna colombiana. Dentro
de los 30 días siguientes a la publicación, terceros podían presentar oposiciones
contra el registro de la marca solicitada, aduciendo las causales de irregistrabilidad
previstas en el artículo 58 de la Decisión 85. La
Decisión 85 no preveía etapa probatoria, tratándose de un aspecto no regulado,
en aquel momento se aplicaba el artículo 590 del Código de Comercio. Conforme
a esta norma interna, la Oficina de Marcas debía señalar un término para la práctica
de pruebas de treinta días así: diez para pedirlas y veinte para practicarlas.
Presentadas o no oposiciones, se procedía
con el examen final de registrabilidad del signo, el cual podía dar lugar a la
concesión o a la negación del registro. La
Decisión 85 no regulaba el tema de los recursos para agotamiento de la vía gubernativa,
por lo que se acudía a la regulación existente en el derecho interno contenida
en el Código Contencioso Administrativo. Conforme
al Código Contencioso Administrativo contra las decisiones definitivas de la Administración
proceden los recursos de reposición ante el funcionario que expidió el acto y
en subsidio apelación para ante el superior jerárquico de este funcionario. Los
recursos deben ser interpuestos dentro de los 5 días siguientes a la notificación
de la decisión y cumplir los requisitos formales establecidos en el Código. Por
lo tanto, si la decisión era otorgar el registro de la marca, el opositor podía
interponer los recursos de reposición y subsidiario de apelación. Si por el contrario,
la decisión era negar el registro, el solicitante igualmente podía interponer
estos recursos. Estos recursos tienen
efecto suspensivo y deben resolverse de plano. Si
la Resolución que resuelve el recurso de reposición confirma la decisión, se envía
el expediente al superior jerárquico para que resuelva el recurso de apelación. Si
en esta decisión se revoca la decisión recurrida, en el sentido de negar la marca
si quien había recurrido era el opositor o de conceder la marca si el recurrente
había sido el solicitante, contra tal resolución procede el recurso de apelación
Si la Resolución que resuelve el recurso
de reposición confirma la decisión, se envía el expediente al superior jerárquico
para que resuelva el recurso de apelación. Para
el recurso de apelación, se establece la posibilidad de solicitar la práctica
de pruebas, el igualmente permite que el funcionario que ha de decidir el recurso
las decrete de oficio si lo considera necesario. El término para el periodo probatorio
será de diez (10) a treinta (30) días, prorrogable por una sola vez por treinta
(30) días como máximo [12] . Cumplida
la etapa probatoria, debe expedirse la decisión sobre el recurso de apelación. Tanto
en el caso de que la decisión del recurso de apelación sea revocar la decisión,
como en el caso de que decida confirmarla se produce la conclusión del procedimiento
administrativo. Si al decidir la apelación
se decide confirmar la resolución recurrida por el opositor, el trámite de registro
concluye con la concesión definitiva del registro de la marca. Si
por el contrario se decide la apelación confirmando la resolución recurrida por
el solicitante, el trámite de registro acaba con la negación definitiva del registro
de la marca. Si la apelación se decide
revocando la resolución recurrida por el opositor, el trámite de registro concluye
con la negación definitiva del registro de la marca. Si
la apelación se decide revocando la resolución recurrida por el solicitante, el
trámite de registro termina con la concesión definitiva del registro de la marca.
El
registro de una marca tenía una duración de cinco (5) años, renovable indefinidamente
por periodos de 5 años, sujeta a la demostración de la utilización de la marca. MARIANA
CALDERÓN MEDINA Head Advisor of
the Legal Office
[1] Decision 486, constitutes the regime in force concerning
industrial property matters within the subregion, since December 1, 2000, being
preceded in its order by Decisions 344, 313, 311 y 85.
[3] Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena
Agreement, amended by the Cochabamba Protocol, Article 1: "The legal system of
the Cartagena Agreement consists of: "The
Cartagena Agreement, its Protocols and additional instruments; "This
Treaty and its Amending Protocols; "The
Decisions of the Andean Council of Foreign Ministers and of the Commission of
the Andean Community; "The Resolutions
of the General Secretariat of the Andean Community; and "The
Industrial Complementarily Agreements and any such other agreements that the Member
Countries may adopt among themselves within the context of the Andean subregional
integration process." (Translation as it appears in the official web site of the
Andean Community - www.comunidadandina.org) [4] Andean Court of Justice, process 10-IP-94: "How
that interrelation or complementarity between national and communitarian law must
be given, is an issue that this Court wishes to deal as follows. The provision
on article 144 of Decision 344, establishes what some legal writers denominate
"rule of closing" (Matías Alemán), according to which, it is left to
the legislation of the member countries, the legislative solution to situations
not contemplated by the communitarian law, due to the fact that, it is possible
that all the cases susceptible of juridical regulation have not been foreseen
by it. It is necessary to point out that, in the application of this figure, the
intern legislations of each country may not establish requirements, additional
requisites or dictate regulations that might, in one way or another, conflict
with the communitarian law or restrict essential aspects regulated by it in such
a way that represent, for example, a lesser protection for the rights contemplated
by the communitarian ruling. (...) "According
to article 144 of the Decision in force concerning industrial property, the issues
not included in such Decision shall be regulated by the national legislation,
the same that will only be able to do so in those cases relative to its competence
and whose reaches will also be submitted, to the philosophy and juridical harmony
that they must have with the communitarian law, always prevailing".(Non official
translation) Andean Court of Justice,
process 40-IP-98: "The jurisprudence of this Andean Court, relative to
internal regulations that are complements of the supranational laws, has been
constant an reiterative when establishing, since Decision 85 became in force and
specifically in prejudicial interpretation 02-IP-88 of May 25, 1988 (O.G. 33 of
the Agreement dated July 26, 1988. Jurisprudence of the Court of the Cartagena
Agreement, Volume I, 1984-88, page 139), referring in such occasion, particularly
to article 84 of Decision 85 and the development of the domestic regulations of
the communitarian law that, communitarian law, doctrine and jurisprudence recommend
the application of restrictive criteria, such as the rule of the "indispensable
complements", to measure how far can legislative innovations of domestic law go,
noticing that the only ones that could be legitimate, would be those complements
that resulted to be 'strictly necessary for the execution of the communitarian
regulations and, therefore that, would favor its application and ... in any way
interfere with or distort it'." (Non official translation)
[5] Cartagena Agreement, article 52: "Before
December 31, 1970, the Commission, shall at the General Secretariat's proposal,
approve and submit to the Member Countries for their consideration a common regime
on the treatment of foreign capital and, among others, about trademarks, patents,
licenses, and royalties". "The
Member Countries shall take the necessary measures to put this regime into effect
within six months following its approval by the Commission." (Translation as it
appears in the official web site of the Andean Community - www.comunidadandina.org)
[6] Andean Court of Justice, process 2-IP-97.
[7] The Andean Court of Justice in process 2-IP-88,
stated that, "The domestic disposition cannot be contrary to the communitarian
ruling, in a way that contradicts it or results incompatible with it, despite
it will not properly be derogated, it will fail in its application automatically,
rather it is, anterior or posterior to the integrationalist regulation".
(Non official translation)
[8] Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement, amended
by the Cochabamba Protocol, article 32: "It shall be the Court's responsibility
to make a prejudgment interpretation of the provisions comprising the legal system
of the Andean Community, in order to ensure their uniform application in the territory
of the Member Countries". (Translation as it appears in the official web site
of the Andean Community - www.comunidadandina.org) Concerning
this competence, The Andean Court of Justice in process 5-IP-96, pointed out that,
"1. According to reiterated jurisprudence, this Andean Court is the competent
authority to decide which communitarian provisions, for pertaining to a particular
case, shall be interpreted. "2. The
pronouncements of the Court have the purpose of assuring within the territory
of the member countries, the uniform application of the provisions that comprise
the Legal System of the Andean Community, reason why, its jurisprudence constitutes
harmonical and stable doctrine, despite its natural adaptation to the particular
case and, given in accordance with the advances of the integration process, what,
on the other hand, makes always necessary the consultation". (Non official translation)
| 
