Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz in Kolumbien ( CO582 )





TT-HOME
TT-ARCHIV
TT-NEWS
Literatur in ADVOBOOK


Letzte Änderung: 16.05.2016

TT-logo groß

Auslandsdienst gewerblicher Rechtsschutz



Flagge Kolumbien
KOLUMBIEN
CODE : CO582

ein Klick bringt die Karte von Kolumbien

schneller Zugriff auf dieser Seite




Kurzberichte
Dokumente
Literatur
TT-ROM








Allgemein
Techn.Schutzrechte
Marken
Wettbewerb
Kartell
Geschmacksmuster
Urheber
Sortenschutz

  • Kurzberichte sind alle zu “Oldies” gewordenen aktuellen Nachrichten zum gesamten deutschen und internationalen gewerblichen Rechtsschutz, die in WEEKNEWS veröffentlicht waren in historischer Reihenfolge.
  • Dokumente sind

    • die Fundstellen von in der Printausgabe des TRANSPATENT – Auslandsdienstes für den weltweiten
      gewerblichen Rechtsschutz veröffentlichten Dokumenten, sachlich geordnet mit Angabe des Heftes, in dem sie erschienen sind, und mit Angabe des
      Umfanges.

    • Links zum Internet, soweit uns dortige Fundstellen bekannt sind. Diese können sofort durch Mausklick aufgerufen werden.


alte Kurzberichte

16.05.2016

15.03.2016

  • Von [email protected] am 15.3.2016: New Resolution regulates patent proceedings in Colombia
    “The Colombian PTO (Superintendence of Industry and Commerce – SIC) recently published Resolution 3719, which regulates some of the articles of Decision 486 – common IP regime for Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru – regarding the conversion of applications, the filing of patent divisional applications and the patentability examination. This Resolution is in force since February 3, 2016.
    – Resolution 3719 establishes that a request for: i) the conversion of an application; ii) the division of a patent application into two or more divisional applications, or iii) the merger of two or more patent applications into one, can be filed at any time during the proceedings, until the resolution deciding on a request for reconsideration of a final decision (either granting or rejecting) has been issued by SIC. …”
    Therefore, Resolution 3719 clarifies articles 35, 36 and 37 of Decision 486, which state that a request for the conversion, division or merger of patent applications respectively can be filed “at any time during the proceedings.
    – Regarding the “conversion of an application”, Resolution 3719 establishes that said term refers to the conversion of a patent into a utility model application and vice versa, and of a utility model to an industrial design application.
    When a request for the conversion of a patent application into a utility model application is filed after the deadline to request the examination for a utility model has expired, the utility model examination fees have to be paid when requesting the conversion. The same applies when requesting the conversion of a utility model application into a patent application.
    – With regard to divisional applications, Resolution 3719 states the following:
    If the applicant does not divide a patent application as suggested by SIC when the application does not comply with the unity requirement, the patentability examination will be only performed on the first inventive group identified by the examiner.
    When a divisional application is filed voluntarily by the applicant, it can only refer to the fractioning of the original application.
    According to the aforementioned, a divisional application could not be the parent application for a further divisional, i.e., a divisional application cannot be further fractioned into one or more divisional applications.
    Further clarification about this section has been requested to the Colombian PTO.
    When a divisional application is filed voluntarily by the applicant, the division will have to be done “literally”, taking into account the consecutive numbering of the claims. Additionally, the description will have to be in agreement with the division of the claimed subject matter.
    According to the current practice in Colombia, there must not be overlapping between the claimed subject matter of a divisional patent application and its corresponding parent application. Therefore, in our opinion, the term “literally” could be referring to this requirement.
    However, since Resolution 3719 indicates that this literal division has to be done “taking into account the consecutive numbering of the claims”, it could also refer to a division based on the consecutive number of claims.
    Additionally, the regulation requesting that the description in a divisional application should be in agreement with the division carried out in the claimed subject matter, does not seem to be in agreement with the practice establishing that any limitation of the scope of the claimed subject matter does not involve the exclusion of the deleted embodiments from the description.
    Further clarification about the interpretation of this section has also been requested to the Colombian PTO.
    – Resolution 3719 establishes that, if with the response to a patentability examination report, the applicant: i) amends the set of claims; ii) amends the description; iii) or files a new set of claims, the Colombian PTO could, if deemed necessary, issue up to two more examination reports. However, the patentability examination must be finished after 18 months counted from the publication date (9 months for utility models).
    Additionally, it is established that in any of the cases i-iii described above, the official fees corresponding to the substantive examination must be paid again.
    It should be pointed out that, in recent years, the Colombian PTO has been rejecting many patent applications after issuing only one patentability examination report. This was not in accordance with Art. 45 of Decision 486 which establishes that, if after the applicant responds to a substantive examination report, the examiner considers that the application still does not comply with the patentability requirements, “two or more” examination reports can be issued if deemed appropriate.
    We hope that, even though the interpretation of the aforementioned article of Decision 486 established by Resolution 3719 limits the number of possible substantive examination reports to a maximum of three, it also prevents Colombian examiners from rejecting applications after issuing only one patentability examination report.”

11.07.2012

  • Am 13. April 2012 ist vom Kongress das Gesetz Nr. 1520 (Law No. 1520 ‘Through which are Implemented the Commitments under the ‘Trade Promotion Agreement’, signed between the Republic of Colombia and the United States of America and its ‘Amending Protocol in the Context of Trade Policy and Economic Integration’) herausgegeben worden, das im Rahmen des mit den USA abgeschlossenen Freihandelsabkommen die Durchsetzung von geistigen Eigentumsrechten verstärkt und ein Strafkatalog gegen Schutzrechtsverletzungen fortschreibt.
    Spanische Fassung des Gesetzes bei WIPOLEX: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=11603

19.06.2012

  1. Ab dem 16. April 2012 akzeptiert das Kolumbianische Markenamt Mehrklassenanmeldungen. News von der Kanzlei Wolf Mendez Abogados Asociados: http://www.wolfmendez.co/news.html#&slider1=1. Durch das Regierungsdekret Nr. 0019 vom 10. Januar 2012 sind im Hinblick auf den Beitritt von Kolumbien zum Markenrechtsvertrag TLT zahlreiche Formalien bei Markenverfahren vereinfacht worden bzw. weggefallen. Einen Überblick bietet der Artikel – CHANGES IN REGISTRATION PROCEDURES IN COLOMBIA (engl.): http://www.wolfmendez.co/publication.html.

  2. Beitritt von Kolumbien zum Madrider Markenprotokoll 1989 mit Wirkung vom 29. August 2012 (87. Mitgliedstaat) (WIPO-Pressemeldung PR/2012/710 vom 29.5.2012 – Colombia Joins the International Trademark System: http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2012/article_0009.html bzw. WIPO Madrid (Marks) Notification No. 195 vom 29.5.2012: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/madridp-gp/treaty_madridp_gp_195.html)

27.01.2012

  • Kolumbien ist mit Wirkung vom 13. April 2012 dem Markenrechtsvertrag (TLT) beigetreten.

05.04.2011

01.02.2010

Weitersuchen

Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Produkt- und Markenpiraterie in Indien: 640.000 Euro Strafschadensersatz

In einer bemerkenswerten Entscheidung hat der High Court in Mumbai im Falle von Markenpiraterie in 2019 einen sehr hohen Strafschadensersatz…
Weiterlesen

Patentrecht in Indien – Angriff eines indischen Patents durch Nichtigkeitsklage

I. Einleitung In den Medien wird der Patentschutz in Indien oftmals als schwach und protektionistisch dargestellt. An dieser Aussage ist…
Weiterlesen

Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz in Pakistan ( PK775 )

TT-HOME TT-ARCHIV TT-NEWS Literatur in ADVOBOOK Letzte Änderung: 06.09.2015 Auslandsdienst gewerblicher Rechtsschutz PAKISTANCODE : PK775 schneller Zugriff auf dieser Seite…
Weiterlesen

Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz in Kambodscha ( KH564 )

TT-HOME TT-ARCHIV TT-NEWS Literatur in ADVOBOOK Letzte Änderung: 20.12.2016 Auslandsdienst gewerblicher Rechtsschutz KAMBODSCHACODE : KH564 schneller Zugriff auf dieser Seite…
Weiterlesen