Photo: Vogue Mexico
Carolina Herrera, the renowned fashion designer, found herself in a legal dispute with a Peruvian entrepreneur who shares her surname. Through her attorneys, Herrera attempted to prohibit the use of the surname “Herrera” in Peru by requesting Indecopi, the national intellectual property authority, to cancel the registration of the brand ‘La Jabonera by María Herrera’.
The Argument from Carolina Herrera
Herrera argued that María Herrera, the Peruvian entrepreneur, was confusing the right to use a surname with the right to industrial property. She contended that sharing the surname did not grant the Peruvian the right to register a brand with that name.
Additionally, Carolina Herrera claimed that the entrepreneur’s actions aimed to exclude other businesses from the market, as she sought to prohibit the commercial use of the surname “Herrera.”
Indecopi’s Decision
However, Indecopi disagreed with Carolina Herrera’s arguments and denied her request to cancel the registration of the Peruvian entrepreneur’s brand. The authority concluded that the use of a common surname could not be monopolized by a single individual or company.
In a two-stage process, Indecopi initially ruled in favor of Carolina Herrera, stating that the brand ‘La Jabonera by María Herrera’ could confuse consumers due to the shared surname and the feminine names “Carolina” and “María.” However, upon review, Indecopi determined that while both brands included the surname “Herrera,” the distinctive element of the luxury brand was the full name “Carolina Herrera.” Thus, they found no significant risk of confusion in the Peruvian market.
Ultimately, Indecopi allowed María Herrera to register her brand ‘La Jabonera by María Herrera,’ affirming her right to use her surname in her business without infringing on Carolina Herrera’s rights in the country.
This case highlights that even for a globally recognized luxury brand like Carolina Herrera, it is not possible to prohibit someone from using their own surname in a commercial brand. Indecopi’s ruling reinforces the principle that common surnames cannot be exclusively owned by one entity, emphasizing the importance of individual rights and fair competition in the marketplace.