“Mitoburn” Trademark Maintained Despite Nullity Challenge

“Mitoburn” Trademark Maintained Despite Nullity Challenge

“Mitoburn” Trademark Maintained Despite Nullity Challenge

In a recent development in the world of intellectual property, Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd successfully maintained its registered trademark, “Mitoburn”, despite an administrative nullity request. The trademark, represented by Marcus Julius Zanon, remains in force after the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI) rejected attempts to cancel its registration.

Background of the Case

The “Mitoburn” trademark (Process Number 921780338) was registered by Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd on November 30, 2021, covering a variety of industrial products, such as collagen and protein for industrial purposes, under Class NCL(11) 01. The legal representative, Marcus Julius Zanon, oversaw the registration, ensuring compliance with the stringent requirements of the INPI.

However, on February 25, 2022, Biodiversite do Brasil Distribuidora de Insumos Cosmeticos e Farmaceuticos LTDA – ME filed an administrative nullity petition (Protocol 850220085470), challenging the registration of “Mitoburn” on the grounds that their own trademark, “Mitburn”, was similar and would cause confusion in the marketplace. Interestingly, Biodiversite filed the nullity request before even securing registration of their own “Mitburn” trademark (Process Number 921999445), which was later rejected.

Key Events

  • January 13, 2021: Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd filed the application for the “Mitoburn” trademark.
  • November 30, 2021: INPI granted the registration of “Mitoburn.”
  • February 25, 2022: Biodiversite filed the administrative nullity request, arguing that “Mitoburn” was too similar to their pending trademark “Mitburn.”
  • July 9, 2024 (RPI 2792): INPI rejected the nullity petition, maintaining the validity of the “Mitoburn” trademark.
  • August 27, 2024 (RPI 2799): INPI rejected Biodiversite’s appeal, confirming that the “Mitburn” trademark could not be registered due to its similarity to the pre-existing “Mitoburn” mark.

Outcome and Implications

The INPI’s decision to reject Biodiversite’s nullity request and subsequent appeal affirms the validity of the “Mitoburn” trademark. Despite Biodiversite’s efforts, including filing an administrative nullity request before securing their own trademark, the INPI found that the similarity between the trademarks could indeed lead to confusion, as outlined in Article 124, XIX of the Industrial Property Law (LPI). This article prevents the registration of marks that imitate or resemble existing trademarks, ensuring consumer protection and preventing marketplace confusion.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of filing for trademarks early and ensuring clear differentiation from existing marks. The decision to maintain the “Mitoburn” trademark without the need for a formal defense on behalf of Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd. reflects the strength of the original registration and its compliance with Brazilian trademark laws.

By keeping their “Mitoburn” trademark intact, Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd. can continue operating under this brand without the risk of legal challenges from competitors. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of early registration and careful trademark management in protecting valuable intellectual property.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

− 1 = 7