assignment of rights.
In light of the above, there are a few important factors that trademark practitioners should consider when dealing with applications and registrations under a co-ownership regime in Brazil. The following is an overview of some of the most important points.
Actions before Brazilian Trademark Office
Statements and responses in compliance with office actions must be signed by all of the owners. However, oppositions, administrative nullity actions and non-use cancellation actions may be submitted to the agency by only one owner.
Legitimacy
According to the Brazilian Trademark Law, applicants must declare that they effectively and lawfully conduct business in connection with the goods and services claimed in the application. In the case of co-ownership, all owners must be engaged in a compatible activity and the same condition must be met in the event of an assignment.
In a recent case, a court ruled that an employer's summary dismissal of a manager was justified, since the manager had entered into a contract with one of the employer's business partners without the employer's approval. The case highlights the difficult considerations regarding evidence that employers must make before making a choice of disciplinary action – especially in situations where the course of events can be proven only through witness statements.
Whether an employee can make use of previously attained know-how, knowledge and skills in a new position is largely governed by the Trade Secrets Act, as well as the particular circumstances at hand and the employee's actions. In a recent case, the Labour Court departed from the principles set out in its earlier case law and implemented a new method for calculating damages in trade secret employment cases.
As part of the COVID-19 crisis package, the government has proposed to extend the schemes for sickness benefits, the jobseekers' work assessment allowance, unemployment benefits and employers' expenses relating to foreign nationals' entry quarantine and employees' quarantine hotel stays.
Introduction
Providing a performance bond in the form of a bank guarantee to secure the performance of work is not unusual in the construction industry. In the event that a contractor breaches its contractual obligations (eg, fails to complete its work by the completion date), the employer or developer is entitled to call on the bank guarantee. However, the contractor may bring an action in court against this call on the ground that such a demand is unconscionable. With the recent enforcement of the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Act 2020 (COVID-19 Act) – the application of which has been extended to 31 March 2021 – a question has arisen as to whether the COVID-19 Act provides a new ground for contractors to challenge calls on bank guarantees. While the high court s decision in