Date: March 20 - 2020

Once again, the Andean Community Justice Tribunal (ACJT) reminds us of its position with respect to peaceful trademark coexistence in the market as evidence of lack of likelihood of confusion between them. In a nutshell, evidence of peaceful coexistence between two trademarks in the marketplace alone is not enough to eliminate likelihood of confusion as a basis for rejection of a trademark application.

The ACJT issued Prejudicial Interpretation 65-IP-2019 on November 19, 2019, as part of an Annulment Action filed before the Colombian Council of State by plaintiff Behr Process Corporation against the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (where the Colombian Trademark Office lies), seeking to Annul the Resolutions which rejected the trademark “BEHR PREMIUM PLUS CON ESTILO & DESIGN” in Class 2.

En la mencionada Interpretación Prejudicial, el TJCA indica primero que la coexistencia pacífica de signos se refiere al hecho que los signos en conflicto (signos idénticos o similares que identifican productos o servicios idénticos o similares) han estado presentes en el mercado durante un período prolongado de tiempo sin que surjan problemas de confusión, indicando que el término «peaceful» se refiere a que no hay conflicto legal pendiente ante ninguna jurisdicción en donde se advierta riesgo de confusión o asociación entre las marcas en cuestión.

El TJCA luego menciona que el análisis sobre el riesgo de confusión entre las marcas es prospectivo, ya que no pretende establecer si ha habido eventos reales de confusión, sino la posibilidad futura de riesgo de confusión o asociación ante los consumidores. Sin embargo, la coexistencia pacífica de signos, aunque por sí sola no es concluyente con respecto a la falta de riesgo confusión o asociación, puede tomarse como un indicio de la misma en un análisis retrospectivo. Así, cualquier persona que alegue la coexistencia pacífica de signos debe proporcionar evidencia adicional para respaldar la falta de riesgo de confusión o asociación entre las marcas en cuestión, por ejemplo, «statistical analysis of differentiation in the consuming public and people participating in the distribution channels, or evidence demonstrating that they have shared effective publicity settings (specialized magazines, musical or sports events, among others), without risk of confusion being present«.

As such, any person alleging peaceful trademark coexistence must provide additional evidence to support the lack of likelihood of confusion or association between the marks in question, such as “statistical analysis of differentiation in the consuming public and people participating in the distribution channels, or evidence demonstrating that they have shared effective publicity settings (specialized magazines, musical or sports events, among others), without risk of confusion being present.”

• The trademark coexistence must be peaceful, as defined above.
• Coexistence must be in the same geographic or virtual market.
• La coexistencia debe tener lugar durante un período de tiempo razonable para tener incidencia efectiva en el consumidor, donde lo «reasonable» dependerá de la naturaleza de los productos o servicios (es decir, productos básicos versus de lujo o productos disponibles de forma permanente versus productos de temporada).
• Coexistence may not be present to perpetuate, facilitate or consolidate acts of unfair competition.
• Evidence of coexistence must be accompanied by other evidence which generate total conviction over the lack of likelihood of confusion or association.

As such, when arguing that there is no likelihood of confusion between marks because the marks in question have been peacefully coexisting in the market for a long period of time, be prepared to submit additional evidence that supports the consumer’s perception that the marks are indeed different and point to different and unassociated business origins (basic elements or likelihood of confusion and association).