For many years in Ecuador, we have not seen a trademark nullity decision issued by the Intellectual Property Committee based on the bad faith causal determined on the 172 article of the Andean Community 486 Decision.
The CHEMINOVA A/S, company as the first owner of the PROAXIS trademark in Ecuador filed an extraordinary revision recourse for the purpose of getting the nullity of the trademark registration obtained by Mrs. DANIELA URREJOLA ORTÍZ. This person who had full knowledge of the PROAXIS trademark previous existence decided to cleverly wait for the trademark expiration in order to immediately request the registration and get it for herself.
This case is characterized due to an additional aspect, as it was established that the applicant is a person expert in trademark issues who not only tried to registered the aforementioned CHEMINOVA´s trademark but also four more brands of this company which are meant to distinguish products of the same international class. This aggravating circumstance was exposed and duly evidenced before the authority, which took this argument and applied it on the resolution No. 0536-2017-CPI-2S in order to definitely cancel a registration gotten in an illegal and illegitimate way.
The following is an abstract of the mentioned resolution that is worth reading:
“The Chamber estimates that the manifested in the present paragraph constitutes reasonable indication of the harm intention against a determined competitor when the PROAXIS brand was registered and when four more brands of the same owner were requested, for the same products- it is 5 applications and the two additional matching with the trademarks of CROPTECH S.A. the only ones requested by DANIELA ALEJANDRA URREJOLA ORTIZ in Ecuador.
Due to the above, the Chamber estimates evidenced the existence of bad faith acts tending to cause prejudice to CHEMINOVA A/S by DANIELA ALEJANDRA URREJOLA ORTIZ, who tried to arrogate- and in PROAXIS case she did it- the trademarks of the mentioned company in Ecuador in an evident attempt of a unfair competition act consolidation due to the coincidence mentioned allows to deduce that the accused knew about the plaintiff trademarks before she requested its registration”.
This is a case that sets a precedent not only for our firm but also for the country due to it considers something more than only the legal formality of the registration lack of renewal. It considers the existence of a legitimate owner known locally and abroad.