The Swedish company faced a competitor who had registered and applied for the trademark KEA in three different classes. The situation posed several challenges: one of the trademarks was already registered, another had surpassed the legal deadline for filing an opposition, and only one was still within the allowed period for opposing.
Despite the complexity of the case and the firm’s relatively recent involvement, the team at Palacio & Asociados managed to turn the situation around through a precise and effective legal strategy. The results were decisive.
The TMO:
- Granted the nullity of the already registered KEA trademark.
- Denied the application that had exceeded the opposition period.
- Considered the third application abandoned after receiving our opposition and its further ratification.
Each of these outcomes involved significant legal hurdles. In the case of the denied application, IKEA did not hold a prior registration in the relevant class. As a result, the defence was based on the brand’s notoriety and the connection to products for which IKEA did hold effective protection. This strategy required successfully invoking an exception to the principle of specialty that governs trademark matters.
The nullity action in particular represented a strict and exceptional legal remedy, as it entailed declaring an administrative act retroactively invalid—as if the granted rights had never existed. This result further reinforced the strength of the approach adopted by the firm.
The legal team leading the defence was comprised of attorneys Temis Vidal and Micaela Acosta Gentile, under the direction of our partner Diego Palacio. Palacio & Asociados thus reaffirms its commitment to the strategic and effective protection of its clients’ intangible assets.