Introduction
The principle of territoriality dictates that a trademark registered in one country is protected only within its borders. As a result, companies are increasingly prioritizing international trademark registration in key markets to prevent squatting. A recent case in Peru has drawn attention to the "Andean Opposition" mechanism—a unique legal instrument that is proving valuable for companies pursuing cross-border trademark enforcement.
1. Case Background: Trademark Squatting Detected in Peru, Early Enforcement Efforts Challenged
In June 2025, routine monitoring through a trademark watch service identified a Peruvian company that had applied to register a Chinese company’s trademark in core product categories. The application was still within its opposition period.
Further investigation revealed that the squatter had filed applications for multiple international brand names over the previous year, more than half of which had been approved. There was no evidence of any business relationship—such as a distributorship or partnership—between the squatter and the legitimate trademark owner. Given the pattern of filings, the action was clearly made in bad faith.
However, the trademark owner initially faced significant hurdles: it had neither registered the trademark in Peru nor conducted business there. Moreover, under Peru’s first-to-file system, the absence of prior rights made a conventional opposition unlikely to succeed.
2. Andean Opposition: An Instrument for Cross-Jurisdictional Enforcement
As the case reached an impasse, Decree No. 486—the Common Intellectual Property Regime of the Andean Community—offered a way forward.
Established in May 1969, the Andean Community is a key regional trade bloc in South Africa. Based in Lima, Peru, its current members include Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador.
Decree No. 486 is the Andean Community’s core intellectual property legislation, covering patents, trademarks, geographical indications, and other IP rights. Unlike the European Union, the Andean Community does not have a unified trademark system. Each member state maintains its own trademark registry, and rights remain territorial.
However, Article 147 of Decree No. 486 creates an exception: any interested party may oppose a trademark application in one member country based on its prior application or registration in another member country, provided the marks and goods/services are identical or similar. This is known as “Andean Opposition.”
A key requirement is that the opponent must demonstrate actual market interest in the country where opposition is filed. One effective way to meet this requirement is to file a new trademark application identical to the prior mark in that country.
3. Case Resolution: Successful Enforcement via Andean Opposition
Although the trademark owner had not registered its mark in Peru, it held an earlier registration in Colombia through the Madrid System. This proved decisive. Using the Andean Opposition mechanism, the owner opposed the Peruvian application based on its Colombian rights. It simultaneously filed a new application in Peru—identical to its Colombian registration—to satisfy the “market interest” requirement.
This strategy used regional law to overcome the limitations of territoriality, enabling the owner to enforce its rights efficiently and prevent the squatter from registering the mark.
Implications of Cross-Border Opposition
The Andean Opposition mechanism underscores the growing importance of regional IP tools in international trademark protection. For companies operating in the Andean region, this system reduces the traditional constraints of territoriality: a prior right in one member country can help defeat a bad-faith application in another, significantly cutting the time and cost of enforcement. It also offers a strategic insight: by focusing registration efforts in certain member states and leveraging regional agreements, companies can build more efficient and expansive protection networks. Furthermore, the mechanism raises the risks for trademark squatters, thereby promoting fairer competition.
As companies navigate increasingly global markets, tools like the Andean Opposition provide powerful means to overcome jurisdictional barriers. This case serves as a reminder: businesses should proactively use regional systems to strengthen their international IP presence.
鄂公网安备 42010402001546号