IP News Report #3
Intellectual Property, Privacy, New Technologies and Legal Advertising
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_toggle title=”Data Privacy News” open=”true”]On January 6, WhatsApp announced to its users that the service privacy policy was going to change. More than two billion netizens were compelled to accept the new conditions before February 8 or to renounce the use of the application entirely.
.
New candidate to head the Access to Public Information Agency
Through JGM Resolution No. 100/2021, the National Executive Power proposed Gustavo Juan Fuertes for the position of Director of the Agency for the Access to Public Information (“Agency”) and published information about him in the Official Bulletin. The Agency -which is the national authority for the protection of personal data and access to public information- has been headless since the resignation of Eduardo Bertoni, which was made effective on January 1, 2021. The candidate is a lawyer and notary public and held different positions as advisor in the National Government and in the Province of Buenos Aires.
In accordance with the selection procedure provided for in Law No. 27,275, the public hearing will be held virtually on March 23, 2021 at 9 am. Subsequently and within 7 days of the hearing, the National Executive Power will make the decision to confirm or withdraw the candidacy of the proposed person. In the latter case, a new candidate will be proposed, and the selection procedure will restart.
Read more[/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”Advertising Law News” open=”true”]Nu Skin case: some thoughts on influencer marketing and misleading claims
Recently, the cosmetics and skin care company Nu Skin made the headlines, due to the AR$ 2.5 million (approx. USD 30,000) fine imposed on it for misleading advertising. Although the sanction resolution has not yet been made public, as reported through the platform argentina.gov.ar, the company Nu Skin Argentina has allegedly breached article 4 of Law 24,240 on Consumer Protection by not providing truthful, clear and detailed information about its products. Indeed, the company would have promised consumers “a full life and a feeling of youth” and promoted its products under stereotypical standards of beauty, which purposely confused aesthetics with health.
Our partner, Paula Fernández Pfizenmaier, published an article about the recent regulation on the Global Lawyers Advertisement Alliance blog.
Influencers without legal status
On January 25, 2021, the General Inspection of Justice (“GIJ”) denied legal status to the Civil Association “Chamber of Influencers”. The request before the body sought to group influencers in order to facilitate the creation and expansion of their specific activities. The IGJ’s refusal was based on alleged acts of discrimination, homophobia, racism and violence by influencers on digital networks that “conspire against the general interest and the common good.”
Read more[/vc_toggle][vc_toggle title=”IP News” open=”true”]Precautionary filed by Carmel Country Club against Netflix to avoid being named in the documentary “Carmel: Who Killed María Marta?”
Recently, the National Court of Appeals in Federal Civil and Commercial Matters, Chamber II, issued a decision in the case “Carmel Country Club SA v. Netflix Inc. and others regarding the use of another’s trademark”.
Carmel Country Club S.A. had requested the court to issue an injunction ordering the immediate cessation of the use, promotion and reproduction of audiovisual content through the Netflix platform that included the names “Carmel Country Club” and/or “Carmel”, as well as the immediate cessation of the promotion and reproduction of the documentary entitled “Carmel Who Killed María Marta?”.
The documentary series deals with the murder of María Marta García Belsunce, which occurred on October 27, 2002 in her house located in Carmel Country Club and which still remains unsolved.
The judge in the first instance decided to reject the plaintiff’s request for a precautionary measure, considering that the requested measure exceeded the scope of the precautionary institute. Later, the Court of Appeals confirmed the rejection and held that the parties market completely different products and services: while the plaintiff provides real estate services, the defendant offers audiovisual content to consumers.
Read more[/vc_toggle][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Authors:
Dámaso Pardo
Partner Intellectual Property, Privacy, New Technologies and Legal Advertising.
Paula Fernandez Pfizenmaier
Partner Intellectual Property, Privacy, New Technologies and Legal Advertising.
Juan Agustín Otero
Associate Intellectual Property, Privacy, New Technologies and Legal Advertising.