Sandra Chicoma specializes in Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition, Consumer Protection and Free Competition. She provides advice on the analysis of possibility to register, registry, renewals and modifications of distinctive signs, as well as obtaining registration of patents, industrial designs, utility models, copyright and other intellectual property rights. She has advised Unilever NV in the application and obtaining registration of its patents, which includes the patent of name "Composition and process for the purification of contaminated water". She executes and faces oppositions, cancellation actions, nullities and actions for infraction before the INDECOPI. She also designs, negotiates and executes licensing, transfer and coexistence of distinctive signs and other intellectual property rights.
In the field of copyright, she negotiates and prepares license agreements with collective management societies and with private companies that offer licenses for musical works. She actively participates in the elaboration of directives and laws in the matter of consumer protection, providing suggestions and comments to the published bills.
Sandra joined CMS Grau as a trainee in 2004 and became an Associate in 2007. Since then she has specialized in air transport companies, retail stores, supermarkets, financial companies, food and beverage companies, and concession vehicle companies.
These kind of companies face the following challenges and problems that Sandra has identified:
• The questioning of the competition attributed by INDECOPI to investigate and / or sanction the companies of the financial system when there is another regulator for this purpose: the Superintendence of Banking and Insurance.
• The questioning of the sanctioning power of INDECOPI and the application of the Consumer Protection and Protection Code outside the framework of the Montreal Convention that regulates international air transport
• The power conferred by ONAGI to investigate and sanction alleged infringements related to the realization of commercial promotions, even though the Office no longer has such powers.
Facing this, Sandra anticipates possible areas for improvement, thanks to her detailed knowledge of the business and development in the market of her customers, which allows her to identify initiatives and opportunities for improvement in the offer of her products and services.
Also, taking into account her background and experience, for the acquittal of consultation and advice in litigation she uses as tools not only the legal norms but also the jurisprudence and doctrine.
- Unilever NV, registration of Patents. Sandra advised Unilever NV on the application and registration of the Patents such us “Carbon Block Filter” and “Composition and process for the purification of contamined water”.
- Unilever Andina Perú, consumer protection complaint. Sandra advised on a consumer complaint against Unilever Andina Peru who was sued for putting in the market the deodorant Rexona "Quantum", which according to the customer was a product that would have caused a burning sensation in the costumer´s application area of application; and therefore, it noted that the deodorant was the main factor for his bilateral axillary dermatitis. The Consumer Protection Office rejected the complaint against Unilever Andina Peru and denied the remedies sought by the consumer and the payment of costs and expenses of the proceeding, accepting the arguments of defense of Unilever stating that it was never proved conclusively that bilateral axillary dermatitis occurred because of the application of deodorant Rexona "Quantum".
- Copa Airlines, consumer protection complaint. Sandra advised Copa on a complaint filed before the Consumer Protection Office for alleged breach to the obligation of providing suitable service by failing to comply with the debit account of the frequent card of the complainant with certain travel miles. Additionally, it would not timely inform the complainant that his frequent flyer account was closed, in breach of its information duty. Copa made clear that it was not the Miles program manager reason for which it was not in the ability to earn miles and/or close the account of the complainant. The Consumer Protection Office issued a resolution accepting our arguments, denying the remedies requested by the consumer and the payment for the costs and expenses of the procedure.
- Saga Falabella, registration of trademark. Saga Falabella requested the registration of the mixed trademark MICA written on characteristic letters and colors to identify products in several classes. In First Instance, the Trademark Office solved granting the requested registration in classes 04, 08, 09, 11, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27 and 28; and rejected ex officio the registration of the requested trademark in classes 16 and 25. In regards to class 16, the Trademark Office considered that MICA did not have distinctiveness since the term “Mica” was used in Peru to name a plastic product used for the protection of documents – product that belongs to class 16. Regarding class 25, the Trademark Office considered the term MICA as an interjection, used on common Peruvian language, understood by the society as a piece of clothing: “shirt”. In such manner it was not distinctive enough. Saga Falabella appealed such Decision. The Intellectual Property Court in Second Instance, upholding our arguments, solved to revoke the decision of first instance and granted the registration of the trademark in classes 16 and 25.
- Hipermercados Tottus, opposition. Hipermerados Tottus as holder of the trademark 360° in classes 18, 22 and 25 opposed to the registration of the trademark “361°”, written on distinctive letters to identify products in class 18, presented by the company Sanliuyidu (CHINA) CO., LTD, due to the resemblance between both trademarks. The Trademark Office denied the registration of 361° trademark to identify products in class 18, indicating the existing relation between classes 18 and 22, as well as in classes 18 and 25; and, likewise, concurred the graphic – phonetic resemblances between the signs “360°” and “361°” were such that created a risk of confusion.
- Saga Falabella e Hipermercados Tottus, unfair competition complaint. The Competition Office initiated a complaint ex officio against Saga Falabella and Hipermercados Tottus for alleged infringement to the fair competition law throughout the publicity campaign of a commercial promotion where Tablets were gift. Even though the complaint started by the actions of the own Competition Office, the Authority making use of our arguments entirely rejected the claim.
- Banco Falabella, unfair competition complaint. The Competition Office initiated a complaint ex officio against Banco Falabella for alleged infringement to the fair competition law throughout the publicity of TV advertising offering discounts on several products. The Office considered that Banco Falabella omitted important information regarding the conditions of the sale. Even though the complaint started by the actions of the own Competition Office, the Authority making use of our arguments entirely rejected the claim. The decision of the Competition Office is important since it concluded that the conditions and restrictions of a sale can be exposed not only by the legal text but also as of the off voice, images, written texts, among other elements, like Banco Falabela did it.
- Sony Peru, complaint for alleged breach to the rules of consumer protection by lack of suitability of a product since it would have been sold with malfunctions and inattention claim within the legal deadline. We proved that the defects found in the product were not covered by the warranty because the product was sold and delivered to the consumer in good working conditions. In addition, Sony evidenced that the claim itself was attended via conference call within the legal deadline and to this end a recording was accompanied. The Consumer Protection Office rejected the complaint in its entirety, denying all the remedies requested by the consumer, the imposition of a fine and payment of costs and expenses of the proceeding.
- Kraft Foods Global Brands (Now Intercontinental Great Brands), trademark opposition. The client applied for the registration of its OREO cookie design. Corporativo Internacional Mexicano S. DE R.L. DE C.V. opposed to the referred application arguing that the trademark consisted on the usual design of chocolate cookies. The Trademark Office rejected the opposition. Corporativo Internacional Mexicano appealed the decision which was granted by the Intellectual Property Court thus we got the trademark registration.
- 2013 – Master in Business Law, Universidad de San Martín de Porres
- 2005 – Law Degree, Universidad de San Martín de Porres
- Lima Bar Association
- International Trademark Association - INTA