VENEZUELA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dana Bentata, Anette Beyer and Biddy Fraga Bentata, Bentata Abogados
Criteria for Genuine Use The LPI does not define what constitutes genuine use of a trade mark, leaving that determination to admin- istrative practice. Through a series of decisions, the IP Office has developed a standard comprising three cumulative elements: the use must be direct or con- structive, commercial in nature, and occur within Ven- ezuelan territory during the two-year period immedi- ately preceding the filing of the cancellation action. Each element is interpreted narrowly, and the burden of proving that all three are met falls on the defendant. Direct or constructive use The IP Office requires that evidence of sales be clearly attributable to the rights-holder, either directly or indi- rectly through an authorised licensee. Constructive use through a licensee may satisfy the use require- ment, provided that the licence agreement is recorded with the IP Office and the licensee is able to dem- onstrate actual sales within the country. Critically, the rights-holder must establish a clear chain of title between licensor and licensee, demonstrating that the sales in question are attributable to authorised use of the mark rather than to an unauthorised distributor or manufacturer. However, a recorded licence agree- ment alone, without accompanying proof of sales and a traceable connection between those sales and the trade mark owner, will not suffice. In practice, this requirement can be difficult to satisfy. Venezuela’s slow recordal process means that many rights-holders struggle to prove this element, having failed to record their licensing arrangements with the IP Office in a timely manner. Additional complications may arise where the licensee has not actually com- mercialised the mark, or where chain-of-title issues result from unrecorded name changes by the licensor or licensee, or from the use of affiliates, subsidiaries or other entities to commercialise the mark under the licence arrangement. A notable pending matter testing this element of the genuine use standard arose in August 2025, involv- ing a recorded licensee that is attempting to usurp its licensor’s registration by simultaneously seeking cancellation of the mark and applying for it in identical classes. In this case, the licensee had used separate entities to co-ordinate the distribution and sale of the
two years. The LPI does not contemplate reporting obligations, use declarations or independent oversight mechanisms. As such, the use requirement exists on paper but is enforced exclusively through adversarial proceedings initiated by interested third parties. Any such party may petition the IP Office for cancellation once a two-year period has elapsed from the date of registration of the contested mark. Once the trade mark owner is notified of the initiation of the proceed- ing by the IP Office, they will have to prove genuine use in the country during the two-year term preceding the filing date of the cancellation action. Policy behind use requirement The use requirement serves a practical function: it prevents the accumulation of dormant registrations that block competitors from adopting marks in active commercial use. In a market where registered rights can be asserted against third parties in opposition and infringement proceedings, the ability to clear unused marks from the registry is an important mechanism for keeping the trade mark landscape open and com- petitive. Risks and implications faced by rights-holders Venezuela’s two-year non-use period is notably short by international standards. The United States, Mexi- co and the Andean Community members all apply a three-year or four-year threshold, while the European Union, Argentina and Brazil each impose a five-year period before a mark becomes vulnerable to cancel- lation on non-use grounds. This compressed timeline leaves foreign rights-holders with little runway to cur- tail or cease their commercial operations before third parties are able to challenge their registration. The practical consequence is a landscape in which cancellation actions are increasingly being used stra- tegically by competitors to clear the way for applica- tions to register identical or similar marks. In some cases, these proceedings may be initiated in bad faith, not to protect a legitimate commercial interest, but to obtain rights in marks that would otherwise be una- vailable. Foreign rights-holders, whose more limited market presence may make it harder to satisfy the evidentiary burden of proving genuine use, are espe- cially exposed to this risk.
433 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook