April is the memorial month for my brand @Yooloper . Exactly on April 7th, 2017 at 2:47 pm the act of abuse started in the market. Not receiving support from the government in order to fight against big companies. 2 years & I'm still asking 4 justice .
With this phrase, the main brand NSComex and his owner have been claiming for their brother's brand Yooloper:
'After all is said and done. I have problems. The major error in the #system is when you get poor, it is not easy to find justice according to justice system. With lack of money, #justice is just a privilege for those ones who have enough money to claim.' Nicolas Sourivongxay
I invoked the law of trademarks No. 22362, the decree nro 27/2018 B.O. 01/11/2018 and the Law of Defense of National Competition No. 27442 before the corresponding institutions.
This opposition is rejected by me, there was no positive conciliation and there was doubting of the legitimacy of the legal act. The arguments of the opponent are scarce, incoherent and possibly made in bad faith.
Yooloper was regulated by the Trademark Law, not applying Decree 27/2018 because its application is not retroactive.
The next step was to initiate a judicial action which entails expenses of attorney's fees and inherent paperworks.
According to the terms of the Law 22362 (1 year for the response of the opposition and then the Justice resolves) the time expired. The process took almost 2 years from April 7th, 2017.
The last conciliation date was on November 13th, 2018.
And the notification was received on June 7th, 2017 provoking my exit from the Monotributo (exit of my company from the system) for solving the expenses of said procedures.
In October of 2018 I returned to the Monotributo but without being able to develop my brand Yooloper.
I tried to ask the National Institute of Intellectual Property to apply art. 42 of Law 22362 but I was rejected as follows:
'Everything is money and money ... without money only rarely justice. Without money, it is very likely that justice will not work. Without money, there is no paradise ... '
In addition, the claim was made before the National Commission for the Defense of Competition in 2018, arguing the dominant position in the market that determines the economic viability of a market participant and that prevents, hinders or hinders entry or permanence in a market or exclude them from this. (art 3 and art 5 Law 27,442). It was rejected by the institution in an inconsistent manner.
Furthermore, a complaint was made before the Ombudsman's Office in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, before the Center of Access to Justice (CAJ) and before Human rights organizations for the principle of vulnerability, imploring the pro-homine principle to be applied. But the claims were sadly without effect.
