Resolution No. SENADI-DTOP-2026-0000677-R represents one of the most significant recent administrative decisions in Ecuadorian intellectual property law, as it clearly defines the relationship between data protection and the trademark system.

In this case, the opposition against the trademark application NIBCLUS was based on the argument that the applicant sought to identify a pharmaceutical product whose active ingredient was protected by data protection. The opponent argued that such protection prevented the registration of the trademark, relying on Article 136(f) of Andean Community Decision 486, which prohibits the registration of signs that infringe third-party industrial property rights.

SENADI rejected this argument and made an important legal distinction. It held that data protection constitutes a modality related to intellectual property, regulated under Title V of Ecuador’s Code of the Social Economy of Knowledge (Código Ingenios), but does not constitute an industrial property right in the strict legal sense. Accordingly, the protection granted to regulatory test data is limited to preventing its unauthorized use or disclosure during the statutory protection period and does not, by itself, create a right to prevent the registration of a trademark.

The decision further emphasizes that the grounds for refusing trademark registration under Articles 135 and 136 of Decision 486 are exhaustive and must be interpreted strictly. Since the alleged infringement of data protection is not expressly recognized as a ground for refusal under the Andean trademark regime, it cannot serve as a legal basis for rejecting a trademark application or sustaining a trademark opposition.

Finally, SENADI clarified that this conclusion does not diminish the existence or validity of data protection rights. On the contrary, the authority expressly acknowledged that the holder remains entitled to pursue any legal remedies available to protect those rights. However, it concluded that trademark opposition proceedings are not the appropriate procedural mechanism to enforce data protection rights.

This decision reinforces the principle that the various forms of intellectual property protection operate independently, each with its own legal scope and enforcement mechanisms. It confirms that rights arising from one legal regime cannot automatically be extended to another in the absence of an express statutory provision.