Post by xyz3600 on Feb 25, 2024 0:49:22 GMT -7
Registration granted by the National Institute of Industrial Property (Inpi) cannot be relativized by the Judiciary. This was understood by the 2nd Chamber of Business Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo when it partially upheld an appeal by the cosmetics company Natura, which questioned the use of the word “natura” by a company in the food sector. The judges understood that there had been a violation of the trademark registration. The rapporteur, Ricardo Negrão, highlighted in the vote that Natura Cosméticos has highly renowned protection granted by Inpi in 2005. This guarantees the company special brand protection in all areas of activity in the country. The defendant's argument that it registered the name “Sabor Natura” in, before the granting of high renown, was not accepted by the judges — not even the allegation that the companies operate in different sectors, with no unfair competition or diversion of clientele.
Thus, the appellants are right in the protection invoked for the 'Natura' brand, and not even flexibility can be considered according to the principle of specialty defended by the defendant, since as already mentioned, the plaintiffs also have previous trademark registrations for the food classes, having already explored the same segment”, stated the rapporteur, who voted to reform the first degree sentence. He was Middle East Mobile Number List followed by the other members of the judging panel. As a result, the TJ-SP determined that the defendant company refrain from using the expression “Natura” in its business, under penalty of a daily fine of R$5,000. The Chamber considered the daily value of R$30,000 that was stated in the initial statement to be high. In addition, the defendant will have to pay compensation for moral damages, which will be calculated during the settlement phase of the sentence.
During this period, legal uncertainty resulted from the fact that those who contracted a health plan did not have specific legislation to protect themselves — the number of actions in Procons being notable, especially after the publication of the Consumer Protection Code in 1990. The promulgation of the Health Plans Law, therefore, sought to bring guarantees to contractors and contractors, but brought new uncertainties and asymmetries throughout the chain. And controversy has already begun with the distinction between the old and new plans, signed as of January 1, from different perspectives, such as the list of procedures, which would be stipulated by the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS ), created in. Different rules established by the regulatory body, such as readjustment rules, are not applicable to old plans.
Thus, the appellants are right in the protection invoked for the 'Natura' brand, and not even flexibility can be considered according to the principle of specialty defended by the defendant, since as already mentioned, the plaintiffs also have previous trademark registrations for the food classes, having already explored the same segment”, stated the rapporteur, who voted to reform the first degree sentence. He was Middle East Mobile Number List followed by the other members of the judging panel. As a result, the TJ-SP determined that the defendant company refrain from using the expression “Natura” in its business, under penalty of a daily fine of R$5,000. The Chamber considered the daily value of R$30,000 that was stated in the initial statement to be high. In addition, the defendant will have to pay compensation for moral damages, which will be calculated during the settlement phase of the sentence.
During this period, legal uncertainty resulted from the fact that those who contracted a health plan did not have specific legislation to protect themselves — the number of actions in Procons being notable, especially after the publication of the Consumer Protection Code in 1990. The promulgation of the Health Plans Law, therefore, sought to bring guarantees to contractors and contractors, but brought new uncertainties and asymmetries throughout the chain. And controversy has already begun with the distinction between the old and new plans, signed as of January 1, from different perspectives, such as the list of procedures, which would be stipulated by the National Supplementary Health Agency (ANS ), created in. Different rules established by the regulatory body, such as readjustment rules, are not applicable to old plans.