Resolution of the Board of Directors of ASIPI on the 1989 Madrid Protocol Concerning the International Registration of Trademarks

The Madrid Protocol, the promotion has been the subject has received special consideration of the Association, the Governing Council held in Orlando in 1995 and in the Bread Workshop held in San Salvador, El Salvador, in November of that year, rather than the latter which was the subject of a panel, involving a representative of the World Intellectual Property Organization and various representatives of ASIPI.

Studies and interventions of our members in El Salvador for the opinions expressed in the meetings of the Governing Council and other meetings, in different instances, have maintained ASIPI partners and those who one way or another has been treated matter, it appears that members of ASIPI share the idea of ​​streamlining and strengthening the systems for the protection of marks that has inspired the development of the instrument to respect that decision.

However, our members have sustained in these forums, with reasons, that application of the Protocol in its current form, is likely to lead to the Latin American countries who are nationals of most members of ASIPI, worrying implications several respects, including those who are related to institutions and the general legal framework, with local systems of protection of brands and national cultures on the matter.

Without pretending to an exhaustive list of comments that have arisen, it may indicate the following:

a) There are several provisions of the Protocol can enter into conflict with the institutionalization of some or many of these Latin American nations that are not consistent with the letter or spirit of the generality of their legal systems in such important matters as are horn that establish and regulate the acquisition, preservation and transfer of ownership of the various asset classes, attributes and effects of ownership rights, administrative procedures, the competence and jurisdiction of government bodies, official languages, the collection, management and destination of fees and charges, which tend to avoid excessive centralization of powers and restricting the provision or delegation of sovereign powers in matters that have broad impact and effects on the domestic level.

b) Note the reasonable apprehension that a possible application of the Protocol means, in fact, the consecration of unequal treatment for usurious and local businesses to viewers and international companies, that this would affect the operation of the National Offices charging, quantitative but not qualitative work, the longer cope with extreme difficulty and diminishing further revenue commensurate with their tasks, in large companies benefit from more developed countries to the detriment of stakeholders and local taxpayers. Also, calves that an eventual saturation of the international registration, with the consequent effect on the National Registry, may hinder the progress of infant industries, especially in underdeveloped countries to developing.

c) The national legal cultures Industrial Property, have managed to evolve through the work of local public officials and professionals working in each country. In result, they may weaken appreciably to adhere them to the Protocol, to be removed, however any increase in the quantitative work on behalf of large companies referred to above, transcendental functions of local offices, as well as reduced and decay function professional adviser to the private sector. This would result in a deterioration of industrial property protection in the domestic sphere, which inevitably would be projected on a universal basis. Without prejudice to the consequences that we could bring to trademark owners and, indirectly, from other privileges, such an effect has been recognized concerned, without exception, the importance of industrial property institutions in the advancement of the countries, which requires that day and it exists in every nation a leading and decisive participation of officials and professionals internalized in their protection, administration and management, to build a barrier so the potential to effect the Protocol referred to in this paragraph.

Source to the foregoing, the Board of Directors of the Association: American Industrial Property, having to look at and consider the recommendation on the matter ASIPI Executive Committee of 29 August 1996, resolved that the members:

1) Study and investigate each other together with stakeholders from public and private sectors CaCl country, the implications that the eventual implementation of the Protocol on the Latin American nations, whether in relation to the matters set forth in this document as any other pertinent obligations, and share among themselves the conclusions they draw;

2) Invite the competent national authorities to make before considering starting any decision-making process on the subject matter of this resolution, a thorough reflection on the consequences of each Latin American country, the ratification of the international instrument in question, and exchange, also views on the matter with the relevant bodies of the other countries of the sub-continent;

3) Remember also to local authorities, that given the effective protection granted to the holders of intellectual property rights and international treaties signed by Latin American nations that are producing effects in their territories or produce short-term as Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the recent Trips Agreement annexed to the instrument that created the World Trade Organization, it is not compulsory on the impending decision of the Madrid Protocol, there, in accordance to the text of that agreement Trips, wide latitude to decide sovereign and independent, for or against the adoption of this Protocol and for research and thorough consideration referred to herein in their No. 1) and 2);

4) Require in the meantime to their countries, when appropriate, local laws perfections of Industrial Property Administration, so they are able to decide freely on the matter to which this document relates, without gaps be noted that the matter may serve as a pretext for third parties require adherence hasty and not sufficiently thought out to the Protocol;

5) Cooperate with the Secretariat of the Association to the wide dissemination of this resolution, all those interested in it I can.

Adopted in Isla Margarita, Venezuela, on October 23, 1996.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.

I attest,
Alberto Berton Moreno
Secretary of ASIPI