VENEZUELA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dana Bentata, Anette Beyer and Biddy Fraga Bentata, Bentata Abogados
Venezuela and Latin America, which has brought the practical reach of this standard into focus. The Maria Especial dispute In response to oppositions lodged against two trade mark applications for the marks DONA MARIA (App No 6092-20) and the corresponding design (App No 6094-20), both in international class 30, the appli- cant filed reactive cancellation actions for non-use against three registrations for the mark MARIA ESPE- CIAL in international classes 29, 30 and 31 (Reg Nos P-293330, P-293331 and P-293332), notified via Official Bulletin No 643, dated 27 June 2025, on the ground that the mark had not been used commercially in Venezuela during the two-year period from June 2023 to June 2025. By Resolution No 527, dated 19 August 2025, pub- lished in Official Bulletin No 645, vol XIV, the IP Office ordered the cancellation of all three registrations. It reasoned that the defence demonstrated only partial use of the mark, specifically, use of the denominative term MARIA alone rather than the full registered sign MARIA ESPECIAL. The IP Office likewise rejected the registrant’s notoriety claim, holding that fame must be established specifically for the mark under review and cannot be inferred from materials relating to other marks held by the same proprietor. The decision was subsequently overturned on appeal by the IP Office in Resolution No 763, issued in Official Bulletin No 648, dated 23 December 2025. A hierar- chical appeal, filed on 28 January 2026, is currently pending before the Ministry of Commerce. Should the Ministry’s ruling be further challenged, the final recourse would be an appeal before the Supreme Although the matter remains pending, its trajectory carries significant implications for domestic trade mark practice regardless of the ultimate outcome. A ruling affirming the cancellation would entrench a strict as-registered standard, under which truncated use of a dominant element does not preserve a com- posite registration. It would further confirm that noto- riety cannot cure partial use in a non-use challenge, a Court ( Tribunal Supremo de Justicia ). Implications: a preliminary assessment
meaningful limitation on the evidentiary strategy avail- able to owners of well-known marks. Conversely, a ruling restoring the registrations would afford considerable latitude for variant use, while leav- ing unresolved whether that latitude is available to all marks or confined to marks of recognised notoriety, where the lower risk of consumer confusion may jus- tify greater flexibility. In either case, the underlying logic is not inherently limited to words. The ultimate definitive ruling could also extend to other visual elements such as colour, typography, spacing and other trade dress elements. Were that standard extended to visual elements, rou- tine updates to packaging and digital branding could be characterised as impermissible variants rather than permissible evolutions of the mark. The definitive ruling will therefore likely prompt further questions, including the permissible range of variation, whether truncated use applies equally to design marks, and whether any flexibility for variant use would be limited to notorious marks or made available more broadly. Until these questions are resolved by a final deci- sion or further jurisprudence, brand owners should proceed on the assumption that truncated use of a mark’s dominant element does not preserve the reg- istration of the composite sign, and that partial use will be treated as non-use. This is particularly significant in Venezuela, which, unlike certain other jurisdictions, does not recognise partial cancellation, meaning that a successful non-use challenge extinguishes the reg- istration in its entirety rather than merely limiting its scope. At the same time, since Venezuela operates a single-class filing system, a brand owner holding registrations across multiple classes holds a sepa- rate registration for each, and a petitioner may bring independent cancellation actions against each class. The practical consequence is that the IP Office may cancel a registration in one class while upholding it in another, making a class-by-class assessment of use an essential component of any portfolio review. Recommendations for Rights-Holders It is recommended that rights-holders do the follow- ing.
435 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook