In a series of rulings that underscore the autonomy of local enterprises against global corporate interests, Peru’s national intellectual property authority has cleared the way for two domestic brands to enter the market despite strenuous objections from PepsiCo and Puma SE. The decisions, rendered by the Specialized Chamber of Intellectual Property at Indecopi, signal a refusal to allow the mere presence of a multinational’s prestige to automatically stifle local competition.
The rulings specifically ratify the registration of “Loritos tu marca de confianza” and “THE PUNA,” rejecting claims that these names would lead consumers to confuse the local products with the global giants “Doritos” and “Puma.” By upholding these registrations in a second administrative instance, Indecopi has reinforced the legal standard that phonetic or visual similarities must be accompanied by a genuine risk of consumer confusion to justify a trademark block.
These cases highlight a recurring tension in the Peruvian market, where small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often clash with international conglomerates over “brand dilution” and “undue advantage of reputation.” For many local entrepreneurs, these rulings provide a critical legal shield, ensuring that descriptive or culturally relevant names cannot be monopolized by foreign entities simply because they sound similar to a global trademark.
The “Loritos” vs. “Doritos” Dispute
The first conflict pitted the American giant PepsiCo against a local brand seeking to register “Loritos tu marca de confianza.” PepsiCo argued that the name was too similar to its globally recognized snack brand, “Doritos,” particularly since both brands were operating within “Class 30″—a category that includes staples such as rice, salt, and coffee.
However, the Indecopi chamber found that the two marks were fundamentally different across three key dimensions: phonetic, graphic, and conceptual. While PepsiCo viewed the similarity as a risk, the authority noted that “Loritos” refers to a specific bird (the parrot), whereas “Doritos” is a “fantasy name” with no inherent meaning in the Spanish language.
The ruling, detailed in resolution N.° 0551-2026/TPI-INDECOPI, further noted that the visual branding—which includes illustrations of two parrots and a distinct color palette—creates a clear distinction. The authority concluded that these differences are sufficient to allow both brands to coexist in the Peruvian market without misleading the average consumer.
Distinguishing “The Puna” from the Puma Brand
In a separate but equally significant case, the German sportswear leader Puma SE attempted to block the registration of “THE PUNA,” a brand dedicated to the sale of high-quality alpaca clothing. Puma SE argued that “THE PUNA” partially reproduced its own trademark and could lead consumers to believe there was an association between the athletic giant and the Andean textile brand.
The chamber rejected this argument, pointing out that “Puna” is a term deeply rooted in Andean geography, referring to the high-altitude plateaus of the Andes. This conceptual difference, combined with a distinct pronunciation and overall visual perception, made the risk of confusion negligible.
Importantly, resolution N.° 0596-2026/TPI-INDECOPI clarified that the “notoriety” of a brand like Puma does not grant it an automatic veto over all similar-sounding names in the country. The authority emphasized that each case must be evaluated based on the actual risk of confusion or the evidence of an attempt to unfairly profit from another’s reputation, rather than the sheer size of the opposing company.
Comparison of Trademark Rulings
| Local Brand | Opposing Entity | Key Conflict | Indecopi Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loritos | PepsiCo (Doritos) | Phonetic similarity in Class 30 | Registered (Distinct concepts) |
| THE PUNA | Puma SE | Partial reproduction of name | Registered (Geographic term) |
The Legal Implications for Peruvian SMEs
These decisions arrive at a time when Indecopi is under increasing scrutiny regarding how it balances the protection of well-known marks with the rights of local creators. The “risk of confusion” standard is the cornerstone of trademark law; it requires the regulator to ask whether a typical consumer, acting in good faith, would mistakenly believe two products come from the same source.
By ruling in favor of “Loritos” and “THE PUNA,” the chamber has signaled that it will not accept “similarity” as a standalone reason for rejection. Instead, it is prioritizing the conceptual meaning of the words—such as the biological reference to parrots or the geographical reference to the Andean highlands—over simple phonetic echoes.
This approach is particularly vital for the Peruvian textile and food sectors, where names often derive from local fauna, flora, or landscapes. If multinationals could block any name that vaguely resembled their own, a significant portion of Peru’s cultural and geographic vocabulary could be effectively privatized by foreign corporations.
The broader landscape of trademark disputes in Peru remains volatile. Recent high-profile cases, such as the legal battle involving the creators of “Hablando Huevadas” who are suing Indecopi over a rejected mark, show that the agency’s decisions are frequently contested in court, reflecting a growing appetite among Peruvian creators to challenge administrative rulings.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific trademark inquiries, consult a licensed intellectual property attorney.
The next phase for these brands involves the formal issuance of their registration certificates, which will grant them exclusive rights to their names within their respective categories. While multinational companies often have the resources to appeal administrative decisions in the judicial system, these Indecopi rulings provide a strong legal foundation for the local brands to begin their commercial operations.
We invite our readers to share their thoughts on the balance between global brand protection and local entrepreneurship in the comments below.
