Post by xyz3500 on Feb 22, 2024 6:41:00 GMT
The registration of a three-dimensional trademark with the INPI (National Institute of Industrial Property) does not guarantee broad and unrestricted protection against the manufacture of similar products, especially in cases that do not generate any type of confusion for consumers or are marketed by companies that operate in another branch of activity. This was understood by the 2nd Chamber of Business Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo when dismissing the appeal of a company that sells ice cream in the shape of a pencil, which took legal action against a manufacturer of household items, which sells popsicle molds in the same shape. . The plaintiff alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition. The thesis, however, was rejected by the TJ-SP, as voted by the rapporteur, judge Fábio Tabosa.
This is because the defendant company also had a registration of the three-dimensional brand with the INPI and, therefore, would not have committed any illegal act when selling the pencil molds. “Now, if the defendant had a duly registered and fully effective industrial design in its favor, the production of the industrial items to which the design referred to could certainly not be Israel Mobile Number List considered illegal, even if the plaintiff asserts ownership of the registration, of an earlier date, regarding the three-dimensional mark”, stated the rapporteur. According to Tabosa, the author did not obtain, with the registration of the three-dimensional trademark, broad and unrestricted protection for the shape of ice cream in general, “thus preventing the production of any other ice cream in the shape of a pencil.
Furthermore, she stated that the company could not oppose the activity of an agent located at another level of the production chain, focused on simply making molds for the production of ice cream that did not necessarily conflict with the trademark registration linked to the author's product. “Due to the diversity of scopes and spheres of coverage, there is no possible collision between the plaintiff's brand and the design used by the defendant as an industrial type for the manufacture of its molds. For this reason, no offense to the author's intellectual property is envisaged, and there is no need to speak of unfair competition, with the aggravating factor of not being the defendant, unlike other ice cream manufacturers, even a competitor of the author, not returning to the same type of consumer public and operating in a completely different field of activity”, concluded Tabosa.
This is because the defendant company also had a registration of the three-dimensional brand with the INPI and, therefore, would not have committed any illegal act when selling the pencil molds. “Now, if the defendant had a duly registered and fully effective industrial design in its favor, the production of the industrial items to which the design referred to could certainly not be Israel Mobile Number List considered illegal, even if the plaintiff asserts ownership of the registration, of an earlier date, regarding the three-dimensional mark”, stated the rapporteur. According to Tabosa, the author did not obtain, with the registration of the three-dimensional trademark, broad and unrestricted protection for the shape of ice cream in general, “thus preventing the production of any other ice cream in the shape of a pencil.
Furthermore, she stated that the company could not oppose the activity of an agent located at another level of the production chain, focused on simply making molds for the production of ice cream that did not necessarily conflict with the trademark registration linked to the author's product. “Due to the diversity of scopes and spheres of coverage, there is no possible collision between the plaintiff's brand and the design used by the defendant as an industrial type for the manufacture of its molds. For this reason, no offense to the author's intellectual property is envisaged, and there is no need to speak of unfair competition, with the aggravating factor of not being the defendant, unlike other ice cream manufacturers, even a competitor of the author, not returning to the same type of consumer public and operating in a completely different field of activity”, concluded Tabosa.