Objective Criteria Contribute to Intellectual Property Case Judgments
Panel 9 focused on “Recent Judicial Rulings in Intellectual Property.” The first expert to address the subject was Natacha Nascimento Gomes Tostes Gonçalves de Oliveira, an Appellate Court Judge from the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice, who quickly emphasized the importance and necessity of using objective criteria in judgments involving IP matters so that decisions do not rely solely on the judge’s subjective assessment. “The 360° test, one of the most comprehensive available, proposing the systematization of objective criteria for resolving trademark disputes, is gaining recognition in the judiciary.” The 360° test was developed based on an academic study conducted in 2014 by two partners from Dannemann Siemsen: Filipe Fonteles Cabral and Marcelo Mazzola, the panel’s moderator.
Luciano Sabóia Rinaldi de Carvalho, also an Appellate Court Judge at the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice, presented next, discussing recent decisions and how they unfold. But before delving into that, he made a significant declaration. “Cases involving intellectual property are inherently engaging, and regardless of the outcome, the discussion maintains a high level.”
The Judge expressed that he always ponders what goes through a judge’s mind when they receive an intellectual property case. “I believe it is essential to honor the right to property, fair competition, and consumer rights. Along these lines, it is necessary to understand, in a specific case, whether there was unfair competition, an intention to harm someone or some company, or if the situation involved bad faith.”
Furthermore, the Judge emphasizes the importance of determining whether the case involved fraudulent measures to win over consumers, mislead them, or even denigrate competitors. “If wrongdoing is identified, the judiciary must act swiftly.”