A marca de azeites portugueses GALLO aproveitou a proximidade da Páscoa e anunciou uma modificação na forma de apresentação da marca e do rótulo de seus produtos. Segundo o diretor de marketing da empresa, Pedro Gonçalves, a nova identidade visual foi inspirada em uma lenda sobre a origem da marca. Ele relata que em 1919, […]
CPDMA BLOG
Category: News
Date: March 21, 2019
Posted by: CPDMA Team
STJ maintains fine on company that sells advance tickets
The 2nd panel of the Superior Court of Justice unanimously denied, this Thursday (21/3), an appeal in which Tickets for Fun intended to reverse a fine of more than R$ 1 million for violations of the Consumer Protection Code applied by Procon Sao Paulo.
In the session, the collegiate maintained a previous decision of the Court of Justice of São Paulo. The TJ concluded that the advance sale of tickets to certain consumers, holders of specific credit cards, prevents other interested parties from competing with equal conditions, not being allowed to choose any place or seat at the show or, even, opt for tickets with more affordable values.
The rapporteur, Minister Mauro Campbell, stated that in order to reject the conclusions adopted by the TJ and accept the company's thesis of the inexistence of abusive practice, "it would be essential to revolve the factual and evidential content already analyzed, which is prohibited by the precedent 7 of the Court , which prohibits the re-examination of facts and evidence".
"In relation to the proportionality of the arbitrated fine, also questioned by the company, in order to assess the issue, it would be essential to analyze Procon's ordinance 26/06, and the interpretation of the constant mathematical formula, since such a procedure is impossible since the administrative act does not fall under the concept of Federal law or treaty", he explained.
Illegal Fee
Last week, the 3rd class of the Court ruled on the illegality of the convenience fee for tickets purchased over the internet in a lawsuit involving Ingresso Rápido, filed by a Consumer Protection Association of Rio Grande do Sul. The collegiate also determined the reimbursement of the company's clients since 2008, five years before the lawsuit was filed in the judiciary.
All consumers who can prove payment of the fee, regardless of whether they are part of the association, will be able to qualify for reimbursement, after the action is completed.
Source: Gabriela Coelho via Conjur.
Recent posts
The protection afforded to highly renowned trademarks
Read more
In recent weeks, news has been circulating on legal websites that the Federal Court has annulled a registration for the "CHEVETTE DRINK" trademark. The registration, with a nominative presentation, was considered annullable for infringing article 124, item VI, of the Industrial Property Law (LPI), which prohibits the registration of signs of a generic nature, commonly used for [...]
Electronic Judicial Domicile: companies must register by May 30
Read more
Large and medium-sized companies [1] across the country will have until May 30, 2024 to voluntarily register with the Electronic Judicial Domicile, a tool of the Justice 4.0 Program that centralizes information and communications about cases in Brazilian courts. After this deadline, registration will be compulsory, starting [...]
Was the instability on Instagram and Facebook the result of a court decision?
Read more
There has been speculation over the last few days as to whether the instability of the social networks Instagram and Facebook is a result of the court decision handed down by the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJSP), which ordered Meta Platforms, INC., which owns the platforms, to refrain from using the 'META' trademark, first registered in Brazil by the company Meta Serviços [...].
Misuse of a trademark by a former partner can be recognized not only as unfair competition, but also as bad faith.
Read more
On February 14, the newspaper "Valor Econômico" published an article in which it was pointed out that the São Paulo Court of Justice had recognized unfair competition in the improper use of a trademark by a former partner. The article, however, does not give the number of the case in which it would be possible to analyze more details of the decision, but it does inform that the individuals had signed a [...]
The first sanctions applied by the National Agency for the Protection of Personal Data (ANPD) were a wake-up call for companies: the LGPD is a serious law and must be complied with.
Read more
The General Personal Data Protection Law - Law No. 13,709/18 (LGPD) was published in 2018 and came into force in 2020. This deadline was given to public and private legal entities (processing agents) that collect, store or process the personal data of individuals, in Brazil or abroad, in order to [...]
English 
Português do Brasil 
Español