About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX005-j

Back

Court of Justice of the Andean Community [2022]: Preliminary Ruling 81-IP-2020

2023 Forum_Session 1_Judgment summary_Gómez Apac

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

Session 1: Emerging Issues in Trademarks

Court of Justice of the Andean Community [2022]: Preliminary Ruling 81-IP-2020

Date of judgment: Issued on May 6, 2022; published on May 13, 2022 (Official Gazette of the Cartagena Agreement N° 4467)
Issuing authority: Court of Justice of the Andean Community
Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Administrative)
Subject matter: Trademarks
Plaintiff: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP
Defendant: National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property of the Republic of Peru (Indecopi)
Keywords: Non-traditional trademarks, Three-dimensional trademark

Basic facts: Whether the three-dimensional sign shown below, which was the subject of an application for registration by Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP, possesses intrinsic distinctiveness to allow the consuming public to identify it with the products it intends to distinguish, and whether the sign could serve to distinguish a specific business origin.

Held: In line with its mandate, the Andean Court provided the following interpretation of Andean law in relation to the examination of the registrability of three-dimensional trademarks, for the purpose of guiding the national court that will adjudicate the dispute raised in domestic law.

Relevant holdings in relation to emerging issues in trademarks [specifically, non-traditional trademarks]: The examination of the registrability of three-dimensional trademarks must be carried out taking into account the following parameters:

1. Commonly used shapes of the relevant goods (that is, the shape of the products or their packaging that are used by some of the existing competitors) must be identified and excluded from the analysis. It is not necessary that they be of common use by all competitors; it is enough that they be used by a group or percentage of them.

For example, if a group of beer-manufacturing competitors uses a bottle shape to package the product, said shape cannot be considered a three-dimensional trademark, since there are already competitors that use it in the market, which makes it a commonly used shape.

2. Those shapes that are indispensable or necessary in relation to the products or their packaging must also be identified and excluded. These are those shapes that have a technical function in relation to the product or its packaging. For example, in the case of beer bottles, they must necessarily have a lid or a cap that secures the content.

3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the exclusion of the above elements has the effect of reducing the sign in such a way that it renders the analysis inoperative, the sign must be analysed as a whole.

4. The examination should be done based on the elements that provide distinctiveness in each case, such as shapes, lines, perspectives, reliefs, angles; that is to say, the inclusion of arbitrary or special elements that cause a different impression from that obtained when observing other distinctive signs or industrial designs, and which serve to distinguish it from others that are commercialized in the market.

5. Accessory elements such as labeling should not be taken into account.

Additional criteria:

1. In order to register a three-dimensional shape as a trademark, the shape itself must allow consumers to associate the sign with a certain business origin. If this does not happen, the distinctiveness could come from denominative or figurative elements (words, numbers, drawings, colors, graphics, etc.), in which case it would be considered as a mixed sign, whereby the three-dimensionality is one of its components.

2. A mixed sign could consist of either a denominative element and the three-dimensional component; a figurative element and the three-dimensional component; or the denominative and figurative elements and the three-dimensional component. In any case, the distinctiveness would come from the perception of the brand set in its entirety.

Relevant legislation:
Decision No. 486 Establishing the Common Industrial Property Regime (this Andean law is applicable in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru)