Great Survey on Arbitration and Intellectual Property in Latin America

We are pleased to share with you the “Great Survey on Arbitration and Intellectual Property in Latin America” carried out by the ASIPI Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration Committee.

The ASIPI Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Committee, since its constitution in 2015, has had as one of its goals to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution methods, and especially arbitration, to resolve conflicts that arise. relate to intellectual property issues. With a view to identifying the work necessary to promote its use, it was decided to conduct a survey in Latin American countries on the possibility or not of using arbitration for the resolution of intellectual property disputes, and if possible, to know the frequency of its use as well as the advantages and challenges it presents.

The survey was carried out in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, that is to say , in 19 Latin American countries. It was completed for the most part by members of our CMA committee, although in some countries, ASIPI members who are not part of the committee participated and in a few countries, it was carried out by fellow friends, who are not members of ASIPI.

The survey was completed in 2018, when it was first published. Now, in 2020, we launch the update made to it for the purposes of its use by ASIPI members.

We hope that this Great Survey on Arbitration and Intellectual Property in Latin America will serve as a useful tool for ASIPI members and that it will be used to promote the use of alternative methods for resolving intellectual property disputes. Nowadays, it is understood that these methods are, for many cases, the “appropriate” means for the resolution of intellectual property disputes: because of their confidentiality, speed, low cost and above all, because of the possibility of having experts to decide conflicts, unlike what happens in the use of courts of judicial order.