{"id":134650,"date":"2026-04-08T12:45:23","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T12:45:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=134650"},"modified":"2026-04-08T12:45:23","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T12:45:23","slug":"ecuador-trademark-disputes","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/ecuador-trademark-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"Ecuador: Trademark Disputes"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-134650","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-trademark-disputes","jurisdictions-ecuador"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Lexvalor Abogados<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2021\/10\/Logotipo-Horizontal-para-fondo-blanco.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Lexvalor Abogados<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2021\/10\/Logotipo-Horizontal-para-fondo-blanco.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Trademark Disputes laws and regulations applicable in Ecuador<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To represent a client before Court in respect of a potential trademark infringement matter, do you require a Power of Attorney \u2013 and if so, what are the execution formalities required by your courts?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. For foreign intellectual property rights owners, it is legally mandatory to have a local attorney-in-fact to represent the IP owner, and a qualified lawyer to appear in court.<\/p>\n<p>Legal representation is granted by virtue of a power of attorney granted in Ecuador or abroad before a public notary, with consular legalization or apostille; or through the involved party (natural person), or legal representative appearing in person at the respective hearing, provided that the rights holder is domiciled in Ecuador.<\/p>\n<p>Powers of attorney from abroad must be duly apostilled or, legalized before Ecuadorian consulate in the country of execution.<\/p>\n<p>The attorney-in-fact or attorneys may appear at any proceeding or stage of the process. A special clause expressly stipulating such powers is required for the following actions: to substitute the power of attorney in favor of another professional, to acquiesce to the claim, to settle, to withdraw from the action or appeal, to approve agreements, to acquit positions, to defer to the decisive oath, to receive securities or the thing on which the litigation is based, or to take possession of it.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of principals domiciled in Ecuador, the power of attorney must necessarily contain these minimum requirements:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Identification of the person granting the power of attorney and their capacity of representation, whether under their own personal rights or as a representative of a duly constituted company.<\/li>\n<li>Address of the person or company granting the power of attorney.<\/li>\n<li>Clear identification of the attorneys-in-fact with their identification numbers.<\/li>\n<li>Clear identification of the general provision of representation before authorities, especially judicial authorities.<\/li>\n<li>Expressly confer legal representation.<\/li>\n<li>Clause stating the possibility of revoking, in whole or in part, at a specific time or at any time, the power of attorney.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>For IP owners domiciled in Ecuador, the power of attorney is granted and must be legalized before a notary public with its respective notarization and issuance of a public deed.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of trademark owners outside Ecuador, the power of attorney must be submitted in accordance with their specific legislation, without prejudice to the minimum requirements listed above, the issuance of an apostille, or legalization before Ecuadorian consulate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it a requirement in your jurisdiction to send a cease and desist letter to a potential infringer before commencing proceedings for infringement? What are the consequences for a trademark owner who chooses not to send a pre-action letter?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. In Ecuador, it is not mandatory to send a cease-and-desist letter before initiating legal action for trademark infringement. Neither the Organic General Code of Processes (\u201cCOGEP\u201d) -general rules of civil procedure- nor the Organic Code of the Social Economy of Knowledge, Creativity and Innovation (\u201cCOESCCI\u201d) -general rules of intellectual property- establish the prior letter as a requirement for filing a lawsuit; the owner may directly resort to judicial or administrative enforcement without prior notice.<\/p>\n<p>Sending a prior letter can serve to prove the offender&#8217;s knowledge, intent, or recurrence in the infringement, and persistence in the conduct, which strengthens the owner&#8217;s position to argue bad faith. Failure to do so does not prevent the infringement from being configured, but it eliminates such prior element to reinforce the case.<\/p>\n<p>In terms of criminal liability, sending a cease-and-desist letter constitutes a warning of the offense, and said warning of the offense constitutes an aggravating factor for the imposition of a custodial sentence or the quantification of the fine.<\/p>\n<p>Strategic considerations, such as the element of surprise, and other factors should be considered when assessing whether to send a C&amp;D letter, or move directly for a high-impact enforcement action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, is there a risk that a pre-action letter could give rise to claim against the trademark owner for unjustified threats? What steps should a trademark owner take to ensure any cease and desist letter does not expose the trademark owner to any liability.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. In Ecuador there is a risk that a prior letter could give rise to a claim against the trademark owner when the communication exceeds the legitimate exercise of the right and constitutes an abuse of the right or negative enforcement. Although there is no separate concept of \u2018unjustified threats,\u2019 the law penalizes the disproportionate, unfounded, or intimidating use of trademark enforcement mechanisms and allows for the assessment of bad faith or abusive conduct through the filing of a negative enforcement action with the Ecuadorian Trademark Authority.<\/p>\n<p>To avoid any exposure to liability, the cease-and-desist letter must be based on verifiable legal and factual grounds, accurately identifying the trademark right invoked (current registration, territorial scope, and classes) and objectively describing the acts considered to be infringements. The wording should be technical, measured, and preventive, avoiding threats, criminal charges, or categorical statements of illegality that are not fully substantiated, as well as demands that are disproportionate or unrelated to the right invoked.<\/p>\n<p>Likewise, as a best practice, it is advisable that the communication allow a reasonable period for response or voluntary cessation, reflecting good faith and openness to resolution, and that it limit itself to reserving legal action in a neutral manner in the event of continued conduct. The letter should be addressed exclusively to the alleged infringer or their representative, avoiding dissemination to third parties that could unduly affect reputation or commercial credit. In summary, the risk does not arise from sending the letter itself, but from how enforcement is exercised: when it is proportionate, well-founded, and prudent, it does not give rise to liability; when it is intimidating or unfounded, it may constitute an abuse of rights or negative enforcement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it mandatory for the parties to have attempted mediation or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings prior to commencing infringement proceedings? If so, what is the minimum expectation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. In Ecuador, it is not mandatory for the parties to attempt mediation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before initiating trademark infringement proceedings. Neither the COGEP nor the COESCCI establish prior mediation as a prerequisite for trademark enforcement actions, so the owner can go directly to court or administrative proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Mediation and other ADRs are voluntary and available at any time, even during the proceedings, if the parties agree or if the judge proposes it as a means of reaching a consensual solution. Failure to make a prior attempt does not affect the admissibility of the claim or invalidate the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, there is no mandatory \u2018minimum expectation\u2019 of prior negotiation or mediation. From a practical perspective, the only relevant standard is good faith: when the parties choose to explore ADR, reasonable and genuine participation is expected; but failure to do so does not result in procedural sanctions or prevent the enforcement of infringement claims.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are claims for trademark infringements heard before a general commercial Court or a specialist Court focused on Intellectual Property disputes? Are trademark infringement claims decided by a judge or by a jury?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Legal proceedings for trademark infringement in Ecuador are predominantly handled through administrative channels, before the national authority competent in intellectual property matters. Civil courts are less commonly used, mainly due to the length of proceedings and the lack of technical specialization of civil judges in this area.<\/p>\n<p>When the administrative authority of last resort issues a decision in an enforcement proceeding, that decision is subject to challenge in court. These appeals are filed before judges specializing in administrative law, who are members of the Administrative Courts, which hear and resolve the dispute through a collegiate tribunal. In this specific scenario, civil judges do not intervene, and the final decision rests with the administrative court, always without the intervention of juries, which do not exist in the Ecuadorian system.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a time limit for commencing trademark infringement proceedings once the facts giving rise to the infringement are known to the trademark owner. After how long would such a claim be time-barred? What action would a trade mark owner have to know to give rise to such a claim being time-barred (for example, is it knowing that a mark in question is in use or is it knowing that a trade mark application has been filed and\/or registered?)<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, there is a time limit, specifically in relation to administrative enforcement of trademark infringements. The power to impose sanctions expires two years after the right holder or the Administration became aware of the infringement; and, in any case, five years after the infringement was last committed, even if there was no prior knowledge.<\/p>\n<p>The relevant knowledge that triggers the calculation of the period is not the mere filing or granting of a trademark application or registration, but knowledge of the actual infringing use of the sign in economic traffic, for example, through a cease-and-desist letter. In the Ecuadorian system, trademark infringement is linked to unauthorized use, so the mere existence of a registered right of the alleged infringer does not in itself trigger the start of the limitation period.<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, as long as the infringing use continues, the conduct can be considered ongoing, and the maximum limit operates on the basis of five years from the last commission of the infringement. For practical purposes, the owner must be aware\u2014or reasonably able to be aware\u2014of the actual and harmful use of the sign for the two-year period to begin; abstract knowledge of a trademark application or registration without actual exploitation is not sufficient.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction does the law protect unregistered trademarks of any kind, including by way of passing off, unfair competition or protection of trade dress. What are the criteria for their subsistence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, trademark protection arises exclusively from registration granted by SENADI; unregistered trademarks do not enjoy protection as trademarks in the strict sense. The Ecuadorian system is constitutive, meaning that prior use alone does not confer enforceable trademark rights against third parties.<\/p>\n<p>However, the absence of registration does not prevent the control of unfair conduct in administrative proceedings. When it is proven that a trademark application has been filed in bad faith, that there is an attempt to commit acts of unfair competition, or that the applicant had prior knowledge, a commercial relationship, or a connection with the legitimate owner\u2014especially in the case of a foreign trademark,the authority may deny the applied for registration, even if the sign is not previously registered in Ecuador. In these cases, protection does not fall on the \u2018unregistered trademark,\u2019 but on economic public order, good faith, and loyalty in the market.<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, Ecuadorian law does not recognize a passing off regime or autonomous protection of unregistered trademarks, but it does prevent the trademark system from being abused, sanctioning or neutralizing applications made in bad faith, undue exploitation of another&#8217;s reputation, or attempts at parasitic appropriation of signs that are well known or legitimately used abroad, when there are objective elements that allow such knowledge or connection to be inferred.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction will the Court hear claims for registered trademark infringement in parallel with claims for passing off,unfair competition, infringement of trade dress or other misleading advertising, or does a claimant need to bring such claims in a separate cause of action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. However, it is important to notice that in Ecuador there are two different unfair competition regimes, which determine whether or not claims can be processed jointly.<\/p>\n<p>On the one hand, there is unfair competition related to intellectual property, regulated by the COESCCI and Decision 486, which functions as an ancillary mechanism for trademark enforcement. When trademark infringement is prosecuted under this regime, it is possible to combine trademark infringement with IP unfair competition, provided that both derive from the same facts and are based on those rules. In this case, the claims are compatible and can be heard jointly.<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, there is unfair competition as a market offense, regulated by the Organic Law on Regulation Against Unfair Competition, which distinguishes between simple and aggravated unfair competition, the latter protects the general interest and the proper functioning of the market. When the facts constitute anti-competitive acts with a structural impact\u2014typically carried out by large undertakings\u2014these claims are not compatible with the intellectual property regime and must be dealt with separately, even if there is a trademark infringement.<\/p>\n<p>In short, compatibility depends on the substantive matter applicable: if the analysis is trademark-related and concerns IP enforcement, the claims can be joined; if the focus is on market competition, the action must follow a different procedure.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, do your Courts share jurisdiction with your Trade Mark Office, such that parties need to seek to seize the forum they prefer first in time, or does the Court take precedence and intervene to stay or transfer any live Registry proceedings (for example relating to invalidity or revocation of registered trade mark) which may overlap with an issued infringement claim and related counterclaim?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, there is no shared jurisdiction or system of \u2018forum shopping\u2019 based on temporal priority between the courts and the Trademark Office. Jurisdictions are clearly separated by subject matter. The intellectual property administrative authority (SENADI) has jurisdiction in the first instance over registration matters such as the granting, opposition, cancellation, invalidity, or revocation of trademarks, as well as the administrative enforcement procedures provided for in the COESCCI. Judges do not displace or suspend these administrative proceedings simply because there is parallel judicial proceeding.<\/p>\n<p>The courts, for their part, hear legal actions for infringement, claims for compensation, and, subsequently, the judicial review of administrative acts issued by SENADI. When there is a final administrative decision, it is not transferred to civil jurisdiction, but may only be challenged before the Administrative Courts, which review the legality of the act.<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, there is no automatic prevalence of the civil judge over the registry procedure, nor is there judicial authority to order the suspension or absorption of pending proceedings before SENADI due to nullity or revocation. Each channel retains its functional autonomy. Coordination occurs ex post, through contentious-administrative control, and not through concurrent jurisdiction that forces the parties to \u2018run\u2019 to the forum that acts first.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where the defendant has a counterclaim for invalidity or cancellation of the registered trademark being asserted against it (either on the basis of earlier rights or as a result of non-use by the trademark proprietor), does the counterclaim become part of the infringement action, so that both issues are heard by the same Court within a single action, with the Court making a determination at its conclusion, or are the validity issues bifurcated and heard in separate parallel proceedings? If in your jurisdiction validity issues are bifurcated, what are the practical consequences of this from a timing perspective? For example, does this mean that a Court will stay the infringement claim and proceed with the validity attack first to avoid finding a trademark infringed, only to have a separate Court find the trademark invalid at a later date?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, a validity attack (nullity\/cancellation, including cancellation for non-use) may be raised as a connected counterclaim within an IP infringement\/observance action, rather than being strictly bifurcated into a separate track.<\/p>\n<p>Under the COESCCI, in both administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings of IP observance, a connected counterclaim is admissible and will be decided in the same resolution or judgment, provided it is filed when answering the action.<\/p>\n<p>Specifically, the Code provides that, within the counterclaim, the defendant may request, among others, nullity of the right asserted as the basis for the action and cancellation (as well as other figures such as claim, expiration, etc.).<\/p>\n<p>In the administrative observance action, the defendant must answer within fifteen working days, and may file a counterclaim in the answer; if the claimant is counterclaimed, the action will follow the route established in Article 543.<\/p>\n<p>Where a counterclaim is admitted in administrative enforcement practice regulated in the Regulation of the law, the file indicates the initial action is suspended while the counterclaim is addressed with priority, while provisional measures remain in force.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the practical timing consequence is not \u201cparallel bifurcation\u201d by default, but rather that the observance case may be delayed\/paused to resolve the counterclaim first (or with priority), depending on its admission and processing.<\/p>\n<p>Judicial observance actions are processed in summary proceedings under the COGEP. As to counterclaims generally, the COGEP establishes that it\u2019s processed and decided jointly with the main claim and defenses.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, when the defendant raises invalidity\/cancellation as a counterclaim (as allowed by the COESCCI), the design is for a single proceeding with a single final determination, rather than a mandatory bifurcation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, does a defendant have a defence of using a mark honestly and concurrently available to them?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Ecuadorian trademark law does not recognise a standalone \u2018honest concurrent use\u2019 defence in the common-law sense (i.e., a general safe harbour merely because two parties have used similar marks in parallel). The infringement analysis is anchored in the exclusivity of the registered right and the likelihood of confusion, but there are specific statutory limitations\/exceptions that can operate as substantive defences where the defendant\u2019s use is in good faith, informational, and not misleading.<\/p>\n<p>In particular, the COESCCI provides an exception to exclusive rights, that a trademark registration does not allow the proprietor to prevent a third party from using the mark to announce, including in comparative advertising, to offer for sale or indicate the existence\/availability of legitimately marked goods\/services, or to indicate compatibility\/suitability of spare parts or accessories, provided the use is in good faith, limited to informing the public for sales purposes, and is not likely to mislead or confuse consumers as to commercial origin. It also adopts an exhaustion rule: once products protected by the trademark have been placed on the market, the proprietor cannot prevent subsequent commercial acts relating to those products.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">When considering the validity of a registered trade mark, does the Court consider whether the trade mark has been registered in bad faith? If so, what actions would indicate this bad faith?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Ecuadorian trademark validity can be challenged (and, at the registry stage, a filing can be refused) on the basis that the mark was applied for in bad faith. The National IP Authority may refuse an application where there are reasonable indicia that it was filed in bad faith or to perpetrate, facilitate, or consolidate an act of unfair competition. In addition, a registered mark is susceptible to relative nullity if the registration was obtained in bad faith (or to perpetrate, facilitate, or consolidate an act of unfair competition), subject to a five-year limitation period counted from the grant date.<\/p>\n<p>Bad faith is therefore assessed as part of the validity analysis, and typically turns on objective conduct showing an intention to appropriate third-party goodwill or to distort competition rather than to identify one\u2019s own legitimate commercial origin. In practice, indicators include (i) the applicant\u2019s prior knowledge of the third party\u2019s sign or market presence, (ii) prior commercial links or access to confidential\/business information (e.g., distributor\/agent\/employee or negotiation history), (iii) patterns of filing third-party marks or \u2018blocking\u2019 filings with no plausible business rationale, and (iv) surrounding circumstances consistent with an unfair-competition strategy (such as filing to pressure, extract value, or exclude the legitimate operator). These are the kinds of factual circumstances that commonly support the \u2018reasonable indications\u2019.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If the main objective in commencing infringement proceedings is to secure an injunction, is a claimant required to state how much their claim is worth at the point their claim is issued?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, whether a claimant must state the monetary value of its claim at the time of filing depends on the nature of the relief sought and the forum in which enforcement is pursued.<\/p>\n<p>As a general rule under the COGEP, a statement of claim must include the amount in dispute only where the relief sought is pecuniary or where quantification is necessary to determine the applicable procedure. Where the principal or sole relief sought is an injunction\u2014i.e., a non-monetary order requiring the cessation of infringing use\u2014the claim is treated as non-pecuniary and may be filed with an undetermined value. In such cases, the claimant is not required to quantify damages at the outset.<\/p>\n<p>This procedural approach aligns with the structure of trademark enforcement in Ecuador, where injunctive relief is most commonly obtained through administrative proceedings before the SENADI. Administrative observance actions are primarily aimed at securing cessation of infringement, removal of infringing goods from the market, and other corrective measures. These proceedings are injunctive and sanctioning in nature and do not require the claimant to state or quantify damages.<\/p>\n<p>By contrast, claims seeking monetary compensation for trademark infringement must be brought before the civil courts. In such cases, the claimant must quantify the damages claimed\u2014or provide sufficient elements for their quantification\u2014because the relief sought is pecuniary. Civil actions for damages may be pursued in two principal ways: (i) directly, as an independent civil action for infringement and compensation; or (ii) subsequently, following an administrative decision that has declared the existence of trademark infringement. In the latter scenario, the administrative decision serves as an evidentiary basis for the civil claim, but the damages must still be quantified in accordance with the COGEP.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, where the claimant\u2019s primary objective is to obtain an injunction, Ecuadorian procedure does not require the claim to be assigned a monetary value at filing. However, where damages are sought\u2014either alongside injunctive relief or in a subsequent civil action\u2014the claimant must quantify the monetary relief claimed, as the action ceases to be purely non-pecuniary.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it possible to seek a preliminary injunction in your jurisdiction? If so, what is the criteria a trademark owner needs to establish and is there a bond or other undertaking in damages payable to compensate the defendant if the Court finds no infringement following a substantive hearing?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Ecuadorian law provides for interim\/preliminary relief in trademark matters both (i) in judicial proceedings, through preventive measures ordered by civil judges, and (ii) in administrative IP enforcement before the competent IP authority.<\/p>\n<p>In judicial proceedings, the request for precautionary measures must comply with the requirements applicable to a statement of claim and the judge must convene a hearing within 48 hours.<\/p>\n<p>For IP matters, upon a party\u2019s request and prior to a favorable report from the competent IP authority, the judge may order preventive measures aimed (inter alia) at preventing or stopping infringement, preventing infringing goods from entering commercial channels, and\/or preserving evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Bond \/ undertaking in damages: the provisions reviewed do not establish an automatic claimant \u201ccross-undertaking\u201d as a precondition to obtain relief; however the respondent may request the interruption of the measure by providing a sufficient bond\/guarantee (real or personal), as assessed by the judge; and, if the applicant does not file the main claim within 15 days from execution of the measure, the measure lapses and the applicant must pay costs and damages.<\/p>\n<p>At the outset of an IP enforcement proceeding, the competent authority may order interim measures in the qualification order provided that the claimant establishes: (i) standing to sue, (ii) existence of the infringed right, and (iii) evidence from which infringement or imminent infringement may be reasonably presumed.<\/p>\n<p>Such measures are applied over the allegedly infringing products and the materials\/means used to commit the infringement, and are expressly provisional, subject to modification, revocation or confirmation.<\/p>\n<p>The alleged infringer may submit defenses\/evidence and may request a hearing within 15 days from notification of the act ordering an inspection or information request (and the authority assesses whether a hearing is pertinent).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Bond \/ undertaking in damages:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Guarantee (discretionary):<\/strong> the COESCCI provides that the authority may require the claimant to post a bond\/guarantee \u201cgiven the circumstances,\u201d and the qualification order must set the amount (proportionality, and it must not unreasonably deter actions). This is complemented by the Regulation of COESCCI, which states that SENADI, if it deems it convenient, will require a guarantee or bond, sets terms (up to 20 days), defines characteristics and parameters, and provides that if the bond is not posted, the measures cannot be executed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Damages exposure (ex post):<\/strong> if interim measures are revoked or it is later determined that there was no infringement (or imminent infringement), the respondent may bring an action for damages and costs against the applicant.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is a licensee (whether exclusive or non-exclusive) of a registered trademark entitled to commence proceedings for trademark infringement? Does the trademark proprietor need to be joined as a party to the proceedings, and does it have an effect whether the licensee is registered before the local Trademark Registry?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As a general rule, a licensee (exclusive or non-exclusive) is not automatically entitled to bring a trademark infringement action in its own name in Ecuador. Under the Andean regime that Ecuador applies, the right to bring an infringement action is framed as belonging to the right holder of the protected right. In practice, this means infringement proceedings are normally commenced by the registered proprietor (or by an attorney\/representative acting on the proprietor\u2019s behalf), rather than by a bare licensee as claimant.<\/p>\n<p>Because infringement standing is anchored in the holder, the safest procedural posture is that the trade mark proprietor is the party (claimant\/complainant), with the licensee participating only if it has been expressly empowered to act (typically via a power of attorney or by contract), or otherwise intervening under procedural mechanisms rather than substituting itself for the proprietor.<\/p>\n<p>Recordal of the licenses is highly relevant in Ecuador, not because it automatically converts the licensee into a holder, but because it determines opposability\/recognition against third parties and avoids challenges that the use\/authorization is not enforceable externally. Ecuador\u2019s COESCCI requires that exploitation licenses for trademarks be registered before the national IP authority, and states that they take effect from their registration; it also regulates recordal of transfers\/licenses and requires express authorization for sub-licenses. The Andean framework is consistent: the registration of the license is relevant for its enforceability against third parties and to prevent a third party from questioning the existence or scope of the authorization. Separately, recordal\/use through a licensee matters for non-use cancellation analysis (use by a licensee counts as \u2018use\u2019 for preserving the registration), but that is distinct from conferring standing to sue for infringement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where the claim for trademark infringement is premised on similarity between the defendant\u2019s mark and the trademark owner\u2019s registered mark, does the proprietor need to demonstrate that confusion has occurred or simply that there is a risk of confusion? What is the minimum standard required to secure a finding of infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Ecuador applies a likelihood-based standard. For registered trademarks, infringement premised on similarity does not require proving that confusion has actually occurred in the market; it is sufficient to establish that the defendant\u2019s use of an identical or similar applied for sign could cause confusion or a risk of association with the trade mark proprietor.<\/p>\n<p>The minimum threshold, therefore, is to show use in the course of trade of an identical or similar sign for products\/services and that such use is capable of generating confusion or association. Where the defendant uses an identical sign for identical goods\/services, Ecuadorian law goes further and presumes the existence of a risk of confusion, which means the claimant does not need to prove confusion as a matter of fact to satisfy the legal test. Evidence of actual confusion can strengthen the case in practice, but it is not a legal prerequisite under this framework.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction is it possible to rely on post-sale confusion as a means of securing a finding of trade mark infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. In Ecuador there is no separate, named doctrine of \u2018post-sale confusion\u2019, but the infringement test is framed broadly as use of an identical or similar sign in commerce that could cause confusion or a risk of association with the trademark proprietor, without limiting that assessment to the point of purchase. As a result, confusion that arises after the sale (e.g., among observers who see the product in public and attribute commercial origin to the trademark owner) can be pleaded as part of the overall \u2018risk of confusion \/ association\u2019 analysis.<\/p>\n<p>This is particularly relevant where the circumstances show that third parties are likely to believe the goods come from, are connected with, or are authorized by the proprietor even if the direct purchaser was not misled. In addition, for well-known marks, the statute also captures scenarios focused on dilution or unfair advantage (economic\/commercial harm by dilution of distinctiveness or unfair exploitation of prestige), which can also align with post-sale marketplace effects.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction what type of disclosure or discovery is typically ordered by the Court in respect of trademark infringement actions from both parties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador there is no broad, common-law style \u2018discovery\u2019. In ordinary judicial proceedings, disclosure is mainly evidence-driven and party-led, with targeted judicial orders rather than \u2018fishing expeditions\u2019. A concrete disclosure-style duty appears when evidence cannot be physically incorporated into the case file due to its volume, weight, or format: it must be made available to the other party for examination and copying, at least 15 days before the hearing.<\/p>\n<p>What courts do commonly order\u2014when the infringement turns on factual verification\u2014is judicial inspection (recognition) of things, goods, establishments, or places, requested by a party and conducted in a way that allows the parties to be heard; the court may also rely on expert witness input, with the expert\u2019s acceptance and duty to provide the technical opinion\/report. It is customary for the administrative authority to call upon registered expert witnesses in the judicial forum (with IP credentials) to participate in cases; and also for local courts to summon registered expert witnesses to provide testimony or reports within judicial cases.<\/p>\n<p>As a practical matter, many trademark infringement disputes are pursued through administrative procedure before SENADI, where disclosure-like tools are expressly contemplated as preparatory diligences. These include requests for information, exhibition of allegedly infringing goods, exhibition of documents related to the alleged infringement, and verification of infringements in the digital environment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What type of expert evidence is permitted by the Court in your jurisdiction? Does the Court accept consumer surveys and are there specific rules about how consumer surveys are conducted. Do the parties need to request prior permission from the Court to adduce survey evidence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, \u2018expert\u2019 evidence is mainly channeled as expert testimony or expert witness: it must be announced in a timely manner (in the complaint and in the answer, and in the briefs authorized for reply\/duplicate) indicating the points it will cover, the identification of the expert.<\/p>\n<p>The expert opinion is presented in a written report that must be submitted at least ten days before the hearing; and at the hearing, the expert may be questioned under oath by the parties. The expert report must meet minimum content requirements (e.g., description of the object examined and the technical\/scientific determination of what is to be verified, among other elements).<\/p>\n<p>Regarding consumer surveys, there is no separate category in COGEP with its own legal protocol (such as detailed sampling\/questionnaire rules); Therefore, they are usually presented as documentary evidence (the study and its annexes) and, to strengthen their probative value, as part of an expert opinion (e.g., a market research\/statistics expert who explains the methodology and reliability and supports the conclusions). No special \u2018prior authorization\u2019 is required other than the general rule: they must be correctly offered\/announced as evidence and admitted by the judge at the relevant stage of the proceedings. In practice, to minimize exposure and maximize probative weight, it is advisable that the study letter\/report be methodologically transparent (universe, sample size, selection, complete questionnaire, bias control, dates, database\/supports) and that the conclusions be strictly connected to the findings, because otherwise, the court may assign it a reduced value or disregard it when assessing the evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does evidence submitted by your client in trademark infringement proceedings have to be accompanied with a statement of truth or other similar declaration?  Which party is typically responsible for signing the statement of truth (or similar), the entity itself or the entity's representatives?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, as a general rule, there is no requirement that all evidence provided by the owner in trademark infringement proceedings be accompanied by an affidavit. In court (COGEP), the \u2018sworn component\u2019 normally appears in oral evidence (for example, when documents are recognized or statements are made in court), rather than as a formal requirement added to each document annex from the beginning of the process: in the recognition of a private document, the author appears and recognizes the signature\/initials or declares under oath that it is theirs.<\/p>\n<p>The most relevant practical exception occurs in certain preparatory proceedings and digital environment tests processed before the National Intellectual Property Service (SENADI), where technical regulations expressly require the application to be accompanied by a sworn statement made before a notary public, whereby the applicant assumes responsibility for possible damage to third parties, in addition to the notarial certification of the content (URL) that is deemed to be infringing. These proceedings are conceived as actions prior to the start of the administrative procedure and may pursue, among other purposes, the anticipation of urgent evidence that is susceptible to loss or alteration.<\/p>\n<p>When an affidavit (or equivalent) is required or strategically advisable, it is not \u2018signed\u2019 by the legal entity as such, but by a natural person with the authority to bind it or to declare on the facts: typically the legal representative or an authorized official with direct knowledge. In the specific case of digital preparatory proceedings, the rule requires a notarized sworn statement from the \u2018applicant\u2019 and provides for the signature of the applicant and, if deemed appropriate, that of the sponsoring attorney.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction is it possible for a claimant to seek summary judgment and\/or strike out of an infringement claim? What are the legal criteria for a Court to grant summary judgment?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Ecuadorian civil procedure does not provide a general \u2018summary judgment\u2019 mechanism in the common-law sense (i.e., judgment on the merits simply because there is \u2018no real prospect of success\u2019 \/ \u2018no genuine issue to be tried\u2019). As a rule, a trademark infringement claim brought before the civil courts will proceed through the ordinary procedural phases unless it is disposed of through procedural admissibility filters or an express admission by the defendant.<\/p>\n<p>A \u2018strike-out\u2019 style outcome is achievable procedurally at the outset through the admissibility\/control stage. Once the claim is filed, the judge must review it within five days; if the statement of claim does not comply with the formal requirements, the court orders the claimant to complete\/clarify within five days, and if the claimant does not cure the defects, the court orders archiving of the case file and returns the annexes (the order is appealable). In addition, the court will inadmit the claim where it is incompetent or where there is improper accumulation of claims; and where the claim is \u2018manifestly inadmissible,\u2019 the court must declare that in its first order, give reasons, and order the archive of the file (also appealable).<\/p>\n<p>The closest functional equivalent to a merits-based \u2018summary\u2019 disposal is judgment on admission. The defendant may formally admit the claimant\u2019s relief in the defence (or, in general, before judgment), and once the court approves the admission, it must issue judgment within a maximum of ten days.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How long does it typically take to reach judgment in a trademark infringement action from issue of the claim, through to first instance decision? What is the lower and upper range of legal costs for such an action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Although trademark infringement can be litigated before the civil courts under the ordinary procedure (i.e., absent a special procedure), the statutory timetable is materially shorter than what is usually experienced in practice. Under the C\u00f3digo Org\u00e1nico General de Procesos, once a claim is admitted the defendant generally has 30 days to file a defence, and the preliminary hearing should be scheduled shortly thereafter (within a 10\u201320 day window after expiry of the pleading term). In practice, however, the full first-instance cycle in a civil infringement case commonly extends to roughly 2\u20133 years, largely because of service\/notification lead times, docket congestion, evidentiary complexity (including expert evidence), and incidental motions.<\/p>\n<p>In Ecuador, many trademark \u2018infringement\u2019 disputes are pursued more frequently through the administrative enforcement track before SENADI, with the civil route used less often due to elapsed time and limited judicial specialization. As a practical benchmark, the administrative track often takes around 1-2 years to obtain a first-instance decision, followed by approximately 1\u20131.5 additional years if an appeal is pursued within the administrative structure (including review by the specialized collegiate body). If the losing party then seeks judicial review before the administrative courts (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo), it is common for the judicial review stage to take on the order of 5 years to reach a decision, depending on complexity and court workload.<\/p>\n<p>As to costs, a workable market range for professional fees (excluding exceptional disbursements) is commonly USD 3,000\u20136,000 for a civil infringement action; USD 3,000\u20135,000 for an administrative enforcement case; and USD 3,000\u20136,000 for a judicial review proceeding before the administrative courts following the administrative phase. The lower end assumes a relatively straightforward fact pattern and limited expert activity; the upper end tends to reflect heavier evidentiary burdens (e.g., technical expert reports), multiple incidents, or intensive interim-relief practice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Following a first instance decision, is it possible for either party to appeal the decision? What are the grounds upon which an appeal can be lodged? Is it necessary to request permission to appeal, or are appeals automatically permissible? If either party file an appeal, is the enforcement of the first instance decision stayed pending the outcome of the appeal?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. In Ecuador, the decision of first instance (judgment or interlocutory order that ends the proceedings) is, as a general rule, appealable without a system of \u2018leave\/permission to appeal\u2019: it is sufficient to file it within the time limit and substantiate it. The COGEP requires that the appeal be \u2018duly substantiated\u2019 and sets a ten-day deadline for filing it; in addition, the opposing party may respond to it within ten days and, as a rule, only new evidence (not previously alleged or disputed) may be admitted.<\/p>\n<p>As for grounds, the practical standard is that of an ordinary appeal: the grievance (errors of fact and\/or law, flaws in reasoning, assessment of evidence, procedural violations, etc.) must be presented with sufficient justification; if the appeal is not substantiated, the judge must reject it. In civil proceedings, once the file has been received, the court convenes a hearing within fifteen days and, once the debate has concluded, issues its ruling.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding whether the appeal suspends the enforcement of the decision, the COGEP distinguishes between different effects: if it is granted without suspensive effect, \u2018the order is enforced\u2019 and copies are sent to the court; if it is granted with suspensive effect, \u2018the proceedings are not continued\u2019 until the challenge is resolved; and there is also the deferred effect (the proceedings continue and the court hears the case on a priority basis together with the appeal against the final decision, when provided for by law). As a general rule, the appeal is granted with suspensive effect and proceeds with suspensive effect, among other cases, when it concerns judgments or interlocutory orders that terminate the proceedings. If the appeal is partial, the uncontested part is enforced.<\/p>\n<p>In administrative proceedings (enforcement proceedings\/IP before the Authority), there are also internal means of challenge without a prior \u2018permission\u2019 requirement: the regulatory regime provides for appeals and extraordinary appeals for review. With regard to the effect (and, therefore, whether or not enforcement is suspended), the Regulations provide that, unless expressly provided otherwise, appeals are granted with devolutive effect; however, suspensive effect is granted when, for example, penalty decisions, refusals of registration, or grants of registration (among other cases listed) are challenged.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If the parties have been involved in a dispute before the local Trademark Office, what relevance does this have on later infringement proceedings? For example where trademark owner (A) may have already sought to oppose the registration of a third party (B\u2019s) mark in proceedings before the local Trade Mark Office, is the trademark owner estopped from seeking invalidity of a registered trade mark where its opposition failed where the invalidity action is based on the same grounds as the unsuccessful opposition?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, prior proceedings before Servicio Nacional de Derechos Intelectuales (SENADI) (e.g., an opposition) are typically relevant in later infringement disputes mainly as procedural background and as an evidentiary record of what was argued and assessed. They can be persuasive in practice, but they are not automatically determinative of later infringement findings (which depend on the alleged acts, timeframe, and the legal test applied in the enforcement forum).<\/p>\n<p>An unsuccessful opposition does not generally create a common-law style \u2018estoppel.\u2019 The closest equivalent in Ecuadorian procedural law is res judicata, which attaches to final judicial decisions and operates between the parties (and successors) when the required identity conditions are met. As a result, an administrative outcome in an opposition is not, by itself, the kind of final judicial determination that would automatically bar later actions under the doctrine of res judicata.<\/p>\n<p>Separately, the trademark statute provides post-registration invalidity routes that are conceptually distinct from opposition. In particular, relative nullity may be sought (even ex officio by the authority) where the registration was obtained in contravention of the Code, was filed in bad faith, or was intended to perpetrate\/consolidate unfair competition, subject to a five-year limitation period from the grant date. Also, the Code frames nullity actions as procedurally autonomous from damages claims. Therefore, a failed opposition does not automatically prevent the trademark owner from later seeking invalidity on the same grounds\u2014though, practically, repeating identical arguments without new evidence or a changed factual\/legal context can make the later challenge harder, and certain nullity grounds cannot be decreed if they are no longer applicable at the time the nullity is sought.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In your jurisdiction, does the Court consider both liability and quantum within the same proceeding, or will any damages be assessed after the Court has reached a decision on liability? How are damages for trademark infringement proceedings typically assessed in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, civil courts are expected to determine both liability and quantum within the same proceeding where damages have been pleaded as part of the claim. As a general rule under the COGEP, the trial judge must fix the amount of damages in the judgment. Where precise quantification is not possible at that stage, the court must instead establish the bases and parameters for a subsequent liquidation phase during enforcement.<\/p>\n<p>Trademark infringement gives rise to compensatory civil liability aimed at restoring the economic position of the right holder. Ecuadorian law does not recognise punitive damages; monetary relief is strictly compensatory in nature and must be supported by evidence of actual economic harm or unlawful gain.<\/p>\n<p>In accordance with the Andean Community framework applicable in Ecuador, damages may be assessed using one or more of the following criteria: (i) Actual loss (damnum emergens) and lost profits (lucrum cessans) suffered by the right holder; (ii) Disgorgement of the infringer\u2019s profits attributable to the infringement; or (iii) A reasonable royalty or hypothetical licence fee, reflecting the amount the infringer would have paid for authorised use, taking into account the commercial value of the trademark and comparable licences.<\/p>\n<p>Although Ecuadorian law distinguishes conceptually between pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm, in practice even non-pecuniary injuries\u2014such as reputational harm or moral damage\u2014are repaired through monetary compensation. Such claims may be advanced under general civil liability principles where the infringement has caused demonstrable harm to goodwill, reputation, or commercial credibility. However, these awards are exceptional in trademark cases and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.<\/p>\n<p>From an enforcement perspective, civil damages actions may be brought either directly before the civil courts or following an administrative decision by the National Intellectual Property Authority (SENADI) declaring the existence of infringement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">In addition to an injunction and damages, what other remedies are available in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, liability and quantum are generally addressed within the same civil proceeding (i.e., damages must be pleaded as part of the claim), and the trial judge should quantify damages in the judgment where possible; if quantification is not feasible at that stage, the judgment must at least set the \u2018bases\u2019 for a subsequent liquidation phase (typically during enforcement\/execution).<\/p>\n<p>As to assessment, the Andean IP framework applicable in Ecuador directs that monetary relief for trademark infringement be calculated using (inter alia) one of the following methods: (i) the right holder\u2019s actual loss plus lost profits; (ii) the infringer\u2019s profits attributable to the infringement; or (iii) a reasonable royalty\/hypothetical licence fee considering the commercial value of the infringed right and existing licences.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, courts may order disclosure-type relief requiring the infringer to identify third parties involved in production\/distribution and the relevant distribution channels, subject to proportionality.<\/p>\n<p>Beyond injunctions and damages, the court may order corrective and ancillary remedies such as: withdrawal from commerce of infringing goods and related materials (packaging, labels, advertising, and the predominant means used to infringe); bans on import\/export of those items; adjudication (transfer) of infringing goods\/materials to the right holder with set-off against damages; measures to prevent continuation\/repetition including destruction of goods\/materials and temporary or permanent closure of the infringer\u2019s premises; and publication\/notification of the condemnatory judgment at the infringer\u2019s expense. For counterfeit-marked goods, removal must be paired with steps to prevent re-entry into commerce, and re-export \u2018as is\u2019 is generally disallowed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Following a decision on the merits, is the winner entitled to recover all or a portion of its legal costs incurred in bringing or defending the proceedings. If legal costs are recoverable, what is the procedure involved and how does the Court assess the level of legal costs which should be reimbursed by the losing party.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, the prevailing party may obtain an adverse costs order against the losing party, because the judgment on the merits must expressly rule on costs as part of the operative decision. In oral proceedings, the court\u2019s final ruling likewise includes (among other items) the decision on costs.<\/p>\n<p>Recoverable costs are assessed under the domestic legal costs framework and are not designed to guarantee reimbursement of all out-of-pocket legal spend at whatever level the winner incurred; rather, the quantification is subject to judicial regulation and the parameters\/administrative instruments issued by the Council of the Judiciary, including the setting of procedural costs linked to State expenses in each case.<\/p>\n<p>Procedurally, once there is an enforceable decision, the winner seeks execution\/liquidation of the monetary components (including costs): the court may order an expert calculation covering principal, interest, costs and any awarded damages, and the claimant must back claimed expenses with supporting documents\/receipts in line with the COGEP \u2018costs\u2019 rules. Upon collection (e.g., from enforcement proceeds), payment to the creditor is made for the amounts due including compensation and costs, before any surplus is returned to the debtor.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Once the Court has issued a judgment, how long typically does the losing party have to comply with the Court\u2019s judgment including any final injunction issued? What are the consequences for failing to comply and how would the winning party seek enforcement of its judgement.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Ecuador, once a judgment is final\/executory it becomes a title of execution and enforcement is pursued through the execution stage under the COGEP. The statute does not set one uniform \u2018compliance period\u2019 for all judgments; instead, the enforcement judge will order compliance and set a deadline depending on the nature of the obligation (e.g., delivery of a specific item is ordered \u2018within five days\u2019). In trademark cases, a final injunction to cease use functions as an obligation \u2018not to do\u2019; if the prohibited act has already been carried out, the judge orders restoration to the prior state and undoing what was done, granting a specific term to comply.<\/p>\n<p>If the losing party fails to comply within the term granted, the COGEP provides coercive and substitute enforcement mechanisms: for \u2018to do\u2019 obligations, the court may order performance through a third party at the debtor\u2019s expense and, if the debtor still does not comply, decree attachment\/embargo of assets sufficient to cover the cost of performance. For \u2018not to do\u2019 obligations, the court may authorize the creditor to undo the act at the debtor\u2019s expense and order payment of any damages and losses awarded; in asset or premises-related enforcement, the court can employ public force\/police assistance to secure compliance where applicable.<\/p>\n<p>Procedurally, the winning party seeks enforcement by initiating the execution proceeding; if enforcement is based on an executory judgment, the judge may proceed directly and will typically appoint an expert to liquidate principal, interest and costs, with the claimant given five days to file supporting vouchers for costs, after which the court issues execution order. During execution, the judge also has authority to access public registries to identify the debtor\u2019s assets and facilitate enforcement measures (including embargo where appropriate).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">8475<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/134650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}