Intellectual Property 2026 Comparisons

Patent protection is governed by the Industrial Property Law of 1955 (Ley de Propiedad Industrial, or LPI), which was wholly reinstated following the nation’s withdrawal from the Andean Community in 2006, along with the Organic Law of Administrative Procedure (Ley Orgánica de Procedimientos Administrativos, or LOPA). Patentable subject matter is defined in Articles 14 and 22 of the LPI. It extends to inventions, industrial designs, industrial models, processes for preparing chemical products, and methods for elaborating, extracting or separating natural substances, provided that the subject matter is novel, involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial application.

Articles 14 and 22 of the LPI establish a non-exhaustive list, subject to the exclusions in Article 15, which bars from protection, among others: living matter, food, beverages, medicines, pharmaceutical preparations and chemical combinations, methods of work, manufacturing know-how, and inventions already disclosed or in the public domain before filing. It also bars the patenting of mere combinations of known elements, unless they are integrated in such a way that they cannot function independently.

Patent applications must be filed before the Autonomous Service of Industrial Property (Servicio Autónomo de la Propiedad Intelectual, the “IP Office”) either directly by the applicant or through a registered local industrial property agent, in accordance with Article 51 of the LPI. Where an application is filed through an agent, the applicant must submit an original, notarised and legalised power of attorney together with the application or, at the latest, in response to an office action issued by the IP Office as part of its formal examination. This burdensome requirement can add time and logistical complexity for foreign applicants, particularly where the power of attorney must be apostilled and couriered from abroad.

In addition, because Venezuela is not a contracting state to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), applicants cannot designate Venezuela through the PCT system and must instead file directly before the local IP Office. As a result, foreign rights-holders must manage their Venezuelan patent portfolio as a separate work stream within any broader international patent strategy.

Notably, Venezuela experienced a suspension of patent grants from 2004 to 2020, with prosecution resuming after the IP Office recognised the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) through Official Notice No DG-09-2020. This prolonged interruption created a gap in recent precedent and contributed to a substantial backlog in patent prosecutions and grants. As a result, the estimated time to obtain a patent is approximately four to six years from the date of filing, in the absence of oppositions and office actions.

The patent application process generally includes the following steps:

• Filing the Application Before the IP Office: The application is filed together with Spanish-language specification, abstract, claims and, where applicable, technical drawings; a notarised and legalised declaration of inventorship signed by all the inventors; an assignment signed by all inventors, if applicable; a copy of the priority document, if priority is claimed under the Paris Convention; a power of attorney, if filed by a local agent; and translations of all documents executed by a locally certified translator. The official filing fee is approximately USD261, subject to exchange-rate fluctuations. Under Article 59 of the LPI, the first annuity is payable upon filing and is included within the official filing fee.
• Formal Examination: This is where the IP Office reviews the application for compliance with formal requirements set out in Articles 29 and 59 of the LPI. If any required documents are missing, it will issue an office action requesting that the deficiency be cured within 30 days, which may be extended for up to three months upon request, at the IP Office’s discretion.
• Initial Publication of the Application in the Official Gazette Three Times at Ten-Day Intervals: This is handled automatically by the IP Office upon payment of the corresponding official fee of approximately USD141.
• Publication of the Application in the Official Industrial Property Bulletin (the “Official Bulletin”): This opens a 60-day window for third-party oppositions. Under the LPI, filing a defence against an opposition is not mandatory.
• Substantive Examination: This is when the IP Office assesses novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability and compliance with the prohibitions set out in Article 15 of the LPI. If the examiner raises any objections, the applicant is granted a 30-day term to respond.
• Grant: This is followed by a 30-day period for the applicant to pay the registration and grant fees, which are approximately USD993.

Patent protection gives its owner the exclusive right to exploit the patented product or industrial process and to prevent third parties from using the invention or design without the patent owner’s consent. Article 7 of the LPI also establishes a cross-consent rule for improvement patents: the original inventor may not use the improvement without the improver’s consent, and the improver may not use the underlying invention without the original inventor’s consent.

Patents of invention granted after 1 October 2020 remain in force for 20 years, whereas design models are protected for ten years, in each case from the date of registration and subject to the payment of annuities. Failure to pay an annuity causes the patent to lapse, with retroactive loss of rights. Article 19 of the LPI provides a one-time three-month grace period following a missed annuity payment, during which the patent owner may seek reinstatement. However, once exhausted, any subsequent failure to pay an annuity results in the irrevocable loss of patent rights.

No extension or renewal of the patent or design term is available. Once the applicable term expires, the protected subject matter falls into the public domain.

The right to apply for and own a patent belongs to the inventor or discoverer, or to a duly authorised assignee. The assignment of rights is evidenced through an original, notarised and legalised Declaration of Inventorship assigning the invention to the applicant. Alternatively, the application may be filed directly by the inventor or discoverer, who may later assign the invention to an individual or entity by means of a deed of assignment.

The deed must include:

• the name, nationality and domicile of each party;
• the identification and description of the patent, including its registration number or application number, together with any priority rights and relevant dates;
• whether the assignor owns other identical or similar patents to those being assigned; and
• the signatures of both the assignor and the assignee.

Licence agreements are subject to the same formal requirements, except that the third bullet list item does not apply. In addition, a licence may only be recorded with respect to a registered patent.

Assignments and licences must be recorded to be effective against third parties. While recordation is not a condition of validity as between the parties, an unrecorded transfer or licence may not be invoked against third parties, including in infringement proceedings or invalidity challenges, and is therefore strongly advisable for both enforcement and defence purposes.

Under Articles 325–329 of the local labour law (Ley Orgánica del Trabajo los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras), inventions developed within an employment relationship generally belong to the employee, subject to certain exploitation and preferential acquisition rights in favour of the employer.

The law treats patent infringement as the unauthorised direct exploitation of the patented subject matter. Administrative practice indicates that the scope of protection is determined by the patent certificate together with its attached claims, resulting in a largely literal approach to claim interpretation.

The LPI provides several defences and grounds affecting enforceability, including:

• administrative or judicial annulment of the patent where (i) it was granted in contravention of the LPI, or (ii) a third party was prejudiced by its grant;
• lapse and entry into the public domain where the patent is not exploited in Venezuela within two years of grant, or where such exploitation is interrupted for an equivalent period, in the absence of force majeure; however, in practice, no such action has been initiated to date; and
• expropriation in the public interest under Article 16 of the LPI. (To date, however, no patent has actually been expropriated by the State. Although Venezuela is bound by Article 31 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the “TRIPS Agreement”), which contemplates compulsory licensing and requires adequate remuneration to the rights-holder, the TRIPS Agreement does not automatically prevail over domestic legislation. Pursuant to the Venezuelan Constitution, a domestic court would not be constitutionally required to apply the TRIPS Agreement over the LPI where the two conflict.)

Given Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Andean Community and the inapplicability of the PCT, practitioners should not assume that defences recognised in other jurisdictions will be available without further analysis.

Limited Border Enforcement

There is no standing customs recordation system or watchlist mechanism. Border enforcement is therefore limited and generally requires proactive, case-specific action by the rights-holder.

Jurisdiction and Proceedings

Intellectual property disputes are generally pursued through civil proceedings before the ordinary courts, as there is no specialist IP court. The competent forum for IP disputes, including oppositions based on claims of better right, is the Court of First Instance in Civil, Commercial, Traffic, Banking and Maritime Matters (Tribunal de Primera Instancia en lo Civil, Mercantil, Tránsito, Bancario y Marítimo). The same conduct giving rise to civil liability may also attract criminal sanctions under the LPI, and a criminal complaint may also be lodged with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which may pursue the matter with the assistance of the competent police authorities.

Remedies

The remedies expressly contemplated by Articles 97 to 105 of the LPI are primarily penal in nature and include imprisonment of one to twelve months, fines, and destruction of infringing goods and instrumentalities depending on the type of infringement. The LPI does not provide a developed civil remedies regime, and there is no express statutory basis for damages, account of profits, fee-shifting or interim injunctions.

Validity Challenges

Patent validity may be challenged either through administrative annulment under the LOPA – brought by the IP Office at any time where the patent was granted in contravention of the LPI – or through a nullity action under Article 66 of the LPI – brought by a third party prejudiced by the grant. A nullity action under Article 66 must be filed within two years from the date of grant. Importantly, the opposition and nullity routes are mutually exclusive: a third party must elect either to oppose the application before grant or to challenge the granted patent through nullity proceedings.

Practical Considerations

In practice, these remedies are not commonly pursued. While patent enforcement can involve practical hurdles, including limited judicial precedent, the absence of specialist courts, and the time and cost associated with proceedings, rights-holders should assess on a case-by-case basis whether civil or criminal avenues, or a combined approach, offer the most suitable course of action.

Registrable Signs

Trade mark protection is governed by the LPI and the LOPA. Article 27 of the LPI defines a trade mark broadly to include any sign, figure, drawing, word, combination of words, slogan or other novel and distinctive sign used to distinguish goods or a business.

Non-Traditional Marks

The LPI does not expressly recognise non-traditional marks such as sounds, scents or three-dimensional shapes as independent categories; although Article 27 permits the registration of “figures”. However, Article 33 prohibits the registration of shapes and colours given to products by their manufacturer, as well as colours or colour combinations alone.

Recent administrative practice nonetheless suggests that certain shape- and colour-based features may be protected where they form part of a broader graphic or composite mark. As such, the stronger basis for protection remains the overall visual configuration of the sign, rather than any single colour or shape claimed in isolation. Where protection is sought for the ornamental appearance of a shape, industrial design or industrial model protection may be more appropriate (see 8.4 Trade Marks, Trade Dress and Industrial Designs).

Grounds for Refusal

Articles 33 and 34 of the LPI set out the grounds on which registration will be refused. These prohibitions fall broadly into two categories: absolute grounds, which relate to the inherent nature of the sign, and relative grounds, which concern conflicts with prior rights.

On absolute grounds, a mark will be refused if it is immoral, unlawful or misleading, or if it lacks sufficient distinctiveness. The LPI bars marks connected to illegal or harmful goods or activities, as well as official symbols, including domestic and foreign flags, coats of arms, public insignia and Red Cross emblems, unless duly authorised. Also excluded are geographic names used solely to indicate origin, product shapes or colours standing alone, non-novel geometric figures, generic terms, and descriptive expressions that convey the nature, quality, origin or form of the goods or services. Personal names and surnames may not be registered unless presented in a sufficiently distinctive form, and, where the name belongs to a third party, the consent of that person is required. Marks that ridicule persons or ideas are likewise prohibited.

On relative grounds, registration is refused where a mark resembles a prior registered mark as to risk confusion or deception among consumers, whether the goods or services are identical or analogous. Despite this statutory prohibition, the IP Office has, in practice, allowed the registration of identical trade marks in the same class where it considers that the relevant goods do not give rise to consumer confusion. Additionally, the IP Office examiner retains discretion to allow registration where the owner of a conflicting mark has entered into a coexistence agreement with the applicant. Descriptive trade names and certain commercial slogans are excluded from registrability, except to the extent they incorporate a sufficiently distinctive element.

Unregistered Signs and Better Rights

Exclusive trade mark rights are ordinarily acquired through registration rather than through prior use. However, the LPI provides a mechanism through which the owner of an unregistered sign may challenge a conflicting application or seek to invalidate a prior registration by asserting a “better right”. In general, such a claim requires proof of all of the following:

• the mark’s notoriety or well-known status;
• prior use; and
• bad faith.

For more information on the types of evidence the IP Office and courts have historically accepted in support of notoriety claims, see 2.2 Requirements for Trade Mark Protection – “Well-Known Distinctive Signs”.

The core requirements to acquire trade mark rights are distinctiveness and novelty. Although the maintenance of trade mark registrations is technically subject to a statutory use requirement, the absence of an administrative enforcement mechanism means that non-compliance may only be challenged through cancellation proceedings brought by interested third parties. See 2.4 Term, Use and Maintenance – “Assessment of Use”.

Well-Known Distinctive Signs

Although unregistered notorious or well-known marks do not enjoy independent statutory protection, a mark’s notoriety may nonetheless be invoked to assert “better right” over a third party’s application in an opposition proceeding, or as the basis for a nullity action brought against a third-party registration.

Administrative practice has historically been strict in its assessment of evidence substantiating claims of notoriety. To succeed, a claimant would generally be expected to present a combination of the following:

• foreign registrations or applications, industry recognitions or awards associated with the relevant mark or product;
• third-party publications featuring the relevant mark (such as advertising materials, technical publications comparing product features, independent reviews or independent studies); and
• commercial records demonstrating use across multiple jurisdictions.

With the limited exception of cases in which a claimant may substantiate a “better right” through evidence that the mark is well-known, registration is required to secure enforceable trade mark rights in Venezuela. Trade mark rights are acquired through registration rather than use, as Venezuela follows a first-to-file regime.

Trade mark applications must be filed before the IP Office either directly by the applicant or through a local agent. Where an application is filed through an agent, the applicant must submit an original, notarised and legalised power of attorney together with the application or, at the latest, in response to an office action issued by the IP Office as part of its formal examination.

Importantly, the LPI does not contemplate multi-class applications. Applicants must therefore file separately in each class, which can materially increase filing and maintenance costs. Applicants seeking protection across multiple classes should also consider the nation’s non-use cancellation regime and limit their filings to classes that are commercially relevant and that they genuinely intend to use in the local market (see 2.4 Term, Use and Maintenance – “Assessment of Use”).

The trade mark application process generally includes the following steps.

• Mandatory clearance search, including separate searches for the denominative and graphic elements of composite marks, at an official cost of approximately USD44 per search, subject to exchange-rate fluctuations.
• Filing the application before the IP Office, together with proof of the search request, proof of payment of the filing fee, a specimen for graphic or composite marks, a power of attorney (if filed by a local agent), and any priority document (if applicable), with supporting documents translated into Spanish and certified by a local translator. The filing fee is approximately USD108.
• Formal examination, where the IP Office reviews the application for compliance with formal requirements set out in Article 71 of the LPI. If any required documents are missing, it will issue an office action requesting that the deficiency be cured within 30 days, which may be extended for up to three months upon request, at the IP Office’s discretion.        
• Publication of the application, first in the Official Gazette and then in the Official Bulletin, which opens a 30-day window for third-party oppositions. The applicant’s failure to respond to an opposition results in abandonment of the application and suspension of its prosecution.
• Substantive examination, where the IP Office assesses the mark’s distinctiveness, novelty, and compliance with the prohibitions set out in Articles 33 to 35 of the LPI. If the examiner raises any objections, the applicant will be afforded an opportunity to make the required adjustments.
• Grant, followed by a 30-day period for the applicant to pay the registration and grant fees, which are approximately USD210.

Unopposed applications that do not receive office actions or refusals generally proceed to registration in approximately ten to 15 months from initial filing.

The term of trade mark protection is 15 years from the date of registration, and registration may be renewed indefinitely for successive periods of the same duration.

To maintain protection, there is technically a statutory use requirement pursuant to Article 36(d) of the LPI, which provides that a mark becomes invalid following two consecutive years of non-use. However, there are no reporting obligations, use declarations or independent oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance at any stage of the trade mark’s life cycle. In the absence of any administrative enforcement mechanism, the use requirement is policed exclusively through adversarial proceedings brought by interested third parties.

Assessment of Use

The standard of genuine use under the LPI’s cancellation regime is strictly construed by both the IP Office and the reviewing courts, with qualifying use limited to actual sales within Venezuela during the relevant two-year period. Use in other Latin American jurisdictions is irrelevant to the analysis. The evidence most commonly accepted consists of contemporaneous commercial documentation, such as dated invoices, sales ledgers, and purchase or sale records corresponding to the relevant time period. Supporting materials such as licence agreements, distribution agreements or social media content are insufficient on their own, making thorough evidentiary preparation essential in any proceeding where non-use may be alleged.

Constructive use through a licensee may satisfy the use requirement, provided that (i) the licence agreement is recorded with the IP Office and (ii) the licensee is able to substantiate actual sales within the country during the relevant period. Critically, the rights-holder must also be able to establish a clear chain of title between licensor and licensee, demonstrating that the sales in question are attributable to the mark owner’s authorised use of the mark rather than to an independent third party or infringer. A recorded licence agreement alone, without accompanying proof of sales and a traceable connection between those sales and the mark owner, will not suffice.

Registration grants the owner the exclusive right to use the registered trade mark, trade name or slogan in connection with the goods, business establishment or activity covered by the registration. That protection is limited to the relevant class and goods or services for which the mark was registered. The registered owner may accordingly prevent third parties from using an identical or confusingly similar sign in relation to the same or analogous goods or services without authorisation, and may bring infringement proceedings and claim damages in respect of unauthorised use.

In practice, the principal limitations and defences are those relating to scope of protection, recorded licensed use, and own-name use.

• Scope of protection – The rights conferred by registration are limited to the class or activity for which the mark was registered. A third party may therefore argue that its use falls outside the scope of the registered right where the goods or services in question belong to a different class, or where the manner of use is sufficiently distinct such that there is no likelihood of confusion with the registered mark.
• Registered user and licensing – Under Article 4 of the LPI, use of a mark by a recorded licensee constitutes authorised use and does not infringe the owner’s rights. However, use by an unrecorded licensee does not confer the same protection.
• Own-name defence – The use of a person’s own name or the name under which a business has historically traded may constitute a partial defence, particularly where that use pre-dates the registration in question and is not made in a manner calculated to cause confusion. However, this defence is narrowly applied, and the presentation and manner of use will be determinative.

Under the LPI, trade mark infringement encompasses the wilful use, manufacture or execution of registered marks or signs likely to cause confusion with them. Liability also extends to those who fraudulently hold out an establishment as a branch of another bearing a registered trade name, and to those who wilfully exploit the industrial or commercial reputation acquired through another’s efforts.

Jurisdiction, Proceedings, Remedies and Border Enforcement

Trade mark disputes follow the same jurisdictional and procedural framework as patent disputes, and the same civil and criminal remedies are available. Oppositions based on claims of better right are filed before the IP Office but are heard by the Court of First Instance in Civil Matters. Venezuela likewise does not maintain a standing customs watchlist or recordation system for trade marks. See 1.6 Patent Enforcement and Remedies – “Limited Border Enforcement”, “Jurisdiction and Proceedings” and “Remedies”.

Validity Challenges

The LPI provides two routes for challenging the validity of a trade mark registration. The first is administrative annulment under the LOPA, which is available where a registration was granted in contravention of the LPI and may be initiated by the IP Office at any time.

The second is a nullity action brought before the competent courts under Article 84 of the LPI, available to a third party where the registration was granted to the prejudice of that party’s rights, provided the third party did not previously oppose the registration of the mark. An administrative decision issued in December 2025 has interpreted the “competent courts” referenced in Article 84 to be the First and Second National Courts of the Capital Region Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction (Juzgados Nacionales Primero y Segundo de la Jurisdiccion Contencioso Administrative de la Region Capital).

Copyright protection is governed by the Copyright Law of 1993 (Ley Sobre el Derecho de Autor, or LDA), which protects original literary, scientific and artistic works, regardless of their form of expression, merit or purpose. The LDA gives effect to Venezuela’s obligations as a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which underpins the statute’s automatic protection principle, the absence of formality requirements, and the extension of protection to foreign works originating in other member states on a national treatment basis.

The LDA takes a broad and inclusive approach to protectable subject matter: scope expressly extends to works relating to literature, music, the stage, photography, audiovisual creation, topography, architecture and science. The statute also recognises derivative and compiled works, including translations, adaptations, transformations, arrangements, anthologies and databases, where the selection or arrangement of the contents constitutes a personal creation.

Chapter II of the LDA sets out a series of permitted uses, allowing the reproduction of certain works in limited circumstances without the author’s consent. Article 17 of the LDA also extends protection to computer programs, which are broadly defined as the expression, in any language, notation or code, of instructions intended to cause a computer to perform a specific task or function, regardless of the form in which it is expressed or the physical medium on which it is fixed. This definition is technology-neutral and sufficiently broad to accommodate certain modern software in its various forms, although it does not resolve the treatment of AI-generated outputs. See 7.2 AI-Generated Works and Inventorship/Authorship.

Copyright protection is automatic from the date of creation and does not depend on registration or any other formality pursuant to Articles 1 and 5 of the LDA. Registration is nevertheless available through the Registry of Intellectual Products (Registro de la Producción Intelectual), but its function is evidentiary, not constitutive; under Article 104 of the LDA, registration serves as proof, absent evidence to the contrary, of the existence of the work, its disclosure or publication, and the identity of the stated right-holder.

The principal substantive requirement for copyright protection is originality. The work must also be expressed in some perceptible form; an entirely unexpressed idea, concept or method does not qualify for protection, consistent with the Berne Convention. While fixation is not a blanket requirement, the statute does require it in certain categories, including (i) choreographic and mimed works, which are protected where the stage movement has been fixed in writing or another form, and (ii) computer programs. Beyond these categories, an unfixed work, such as an improvised speech or performance, may nonetheless qualify for protection provided it meets the originality threshold.

Article 7 of the LDA defines the author as the natural person who creates the work. The statute also recognises joint authorship for works created in collaboration by two or more natural persons. In those cases, rights belong jointly to the co-authors and are generally exercised by mutual consent, although each may separately exploit their own contribution if it can be used independently and doing so does not prejudice the common work. Where the contributions of the co-authors cannot be separated, the work must be exploited collectively, and no single co-author may act unilaterally in a manner that prejudices the others.

For works created by employees or by commission, the law adopts a broad presumption in favour of the employer or commissioning party, in accordance with Article 59 of the LDA. Unless otherwise agreed, works created in the course of employment or on commission are presumed to be assigned to the employer or commissioning party for the full term of protection and without limitation. This presumption is rebuttable, and parties are free to contractually vary the allocation of rights.

A similar rule applies specifically to computer programs, where exploitation rights are presumed assigned to the program’s producer in the absence of proof to the contrary under Article 17 of the LDA.

Together, these provisions mean that employers and commissioning parties in Venezuela generally enjoy a strong default position with respect to works created for them.

Authors hold the exclusive patrimonial and moral rights to exploit the work. Under the LDA, patrimonial rights include the rights of reproduction, public communication, distribution, translation, adaptation, and other forms of authorised exploitation. These rights may be transferred in whole or in part, exclusively or non-exclusively, and may be licensed to third parties for specific uses, territories or periods of time.

The LDA affords particularly strong protection to moral rights. These encompass the right of attribution and the right of integrity (ie the right to object to any modification, distortion or mutilation of the work that would be prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation). Pursuant to Article 5 of the LDA, moral rights are inalienable, unattachable, unwaivable and imprescriptible. This protection is further reflected in Article 122 of the LDA, under which the applicable criminal penalty may be increased by one half where an infringement is committed in a manner likely to prejudice the author’s honour or reputation.

The term of copyright protection is the life of the author plus 60 years, counted from January 1 of the year following the author’s death. In the case of joint works, the 60-year term runs from January 1 of the year following the death of the last surviving co-author. The statute also establishes special terms for certain categories of works, such as anonymous or pseudonymous works and audiovisual works, broadcasts and computer programs, which are protected for 60 years from January 1 of the year following their first publication. Where an anonymous or pseudonymous work is disclosed under the author’s real name before the expiry of that term, the standard life-plus-60-years term applies instead.

On the transmission and termination of rights, Articles 29 and 30 of the LDA govern the passing of patrimonial rights upon the author’s death, which transfer in accordance with the general rules of succession as set out in the Civil Code. With respect to assignments made during the author’s lifetime, Article 50 of the LDA provides that exploitation rights that have been assigned revert to the author or their successors in title upon the expiry of the assignee’s rights. Additionally, Article 58 of the LDA grants the author a personal right to revoke an assignment at any time, even after publication, provided they indemnify the assignee for any resulting prejudice, though this right lapses on the author’s death and does not apply to works created in the course of employment under Article 59 of the LDA.

Articles 43 and 44 of the LDA establish a specific and limited set of statutory exceptions to copyright protection. Unlike the open-ended fair use or fair dealing frameworks found in common law jurisdictions, the LDA’s exceptions regime is exhaustive and narrowly construed. These exceptions are principally centred on private, non-commercial uses and on acts that do not involve profit or compensation. They also extend to certain reproductions and uses for educational purposes, official or religious ceremonies, and the reproduction of certain works permanently displayed in public spaces, subject in each case to the conditions set out in the statute.

Each exception is narrowly construed and must operate subject to the nation’s obligations under the Berne Convention: an otherwise permitted use will lose its exempted status if it conflicts with the normal exploitation of the work or unreasonably prejudices the legitimate interests of the author. Use that falls outside those conditions will not be excused, and there is no discretion for a court to excuse an unauthorised use on general fairness grounds. Parties seeking to rely on a statutory exception should ensure that their use falls squarely within one of the categories expressly recognised by the LDA.

Copyright infringement consists of the unauthorised exercise of the author’s rights, including the unauthorised reproduction, public communication, distribution or any other form of exploitation of a protected work.

Enforcement Framework

The LDA provides both civil and criminal remedies. Articles 109 to 118 of the LDA authorise precautionary and final judicial measures, including injunctive relief, fines, damages and orders for the withdrawal or destruction of unlawful copies and the equipment. Articles 119 to 122 of the LDA criminalise a range of infringing acts and related violations, with penalties ranging from six months’ to four years’ imprisonment, which may be increased by one half where the infringement prejudices the author’s honour or reputation.

Jurisdiction and Proceedings

Copyright disputes are heard by the first instance civil courts in civil matters and by the first instance criminal courts where criminal liability is alleged. The Board of Judicature is empowered to assign jurisdiction over copyright matters to one or more designated first instance civil or criminal courts in the Federal District, with jurisdiction extending nationwide.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

Under the LDA, collecting societies operate as authorised and supervised collective management entities. To function, they must have legal personality, obtain state authorisation, and remain subject to government oversight, in compliance with the requirements set out in Article 61 of the LDA. Collecting societies play a central role in the licensing of works across their repertoire, particularly for uses, such as public performance and broadcast, where individual rights clearance would be impractical. They are empowered to set tariffs for assignments or licences covering works in their repertoire, and those tariffs, together with their internal rules and other key documents, must be registered with the Register of Intellectual Products.

Tariff disputes and broader conflicts are subject to a structured dispute resolution framework under the LDA. Users’ organisations and broadcasters may challenge excessive tariffs for public communications of pre-existing musical works through arbitration before the National Directorate of Copyright. Beyond tariff disputes the National Directorate of Copyright may also act as arbitrator in disputes between right-holders, collecting societies, members and users, providing a specialist administrative forum for the resolution of copyright-related conflicts without recourse to the ordinary courts.

Industrial designs and industrial models are expressly recognised as patentable subject matter under Article 14 of the LPI. Nonetheless, courts have clarified that applications are examined under the law in force at the time of filing. In Decision No 00307 dated 5 June 2019, the Supreme Court held, in connection with Bulgari SpA’s 2006 application for the industrial design of its Eau Parfumée au Thé Rouge perfume bottle, that the application had to be examined under Andean Community Decision 486 rather than the LPI, because Decision 486 was the regime in force at the date of the filing of the application.

The LPI distinguishes between two categories of protected subject matter: (i) an industrial design patent protects the arrangement or combination of lines, colours, or both, applied to give an industrial object a distinctive appearance, whereas (ii) an industrial model patent protects the three-dimensional form of an industrial, commercial or domestic article that is distinguished from similar articles by its particular shape or configuration. Containers may be registered as industrial models, while artistic works and garments are expressly excluded from protection. Article 23 of the LPI further bars registration of designs that fall within certain trade mark prohibitions or that have already been registered as trade marks, preventing overlapping use of the industrial design regime to obtain protection that would otherwise be refused or is already secured under trade mark law.

Although trade dress is not expressly recognised as a standalone category under the LPI or other statute, protection for trade dress-type features is pursued through industrial design rights, where the relevant visual features are registered.

Protection is fundamentally registration-based; there are no unregistered rights available, unless a foreign rights-holder is able to substantiate a claim of “better right” based on notoriety before the IP Office when asserting an opposition or a nullity against the registration of a third-party application or registration.

Both industrial designs and industrial models must satisfy the statutory requirements of novelty and originality, give the product a distinctive appearance of its own, be capable of domestic or industrial application, and be susceptible to commercial reproduction. Article 24 of the LPI limits protection to the external appearance of the design and does not extend to the product itself or its utilitarian function. See 4.5 Functionality and Technical Features.

An industrial design or model application must be filed before the IP Office and satisfy the same formal and substantive requirements applicable to patent applications (see 1.2 Patent Granting Procedure). However, registration of an industrial design or model typically takes approximately two to three years, compared to the four- to six-year timeframe generally required for a patent grant.

Industrial designs and models remain in force for ten years, counted from the date of registration. No extension or renewal of the industrial design or model term is available. Once the applicable term expires, the protected subject matter falls into the public domain.

For registered industrial designs or industrial models, infringement consists of the unauthorised exploitation or fraudulent copying of the protected design or model. The LPI’s civil and criminal penalty provisions applicable to trade mark and patent infringement also expressly cover the infringement of registered industrial design and industrial models. See 1.6 Patent Enforcement and Remedies.

Likewise, where trade dress features are protected under industrial design or trade mark law, the remedies available to the rights-holder correspond to those applicable to the relevant category of intellectual property right. See 1.6 Patent Enforcement and Remedies and 2.6 Trade Mark Enforcement and Remedies.

The requirements of novelty, originality and ornamental character collectively exclude purely functional features from protection. Article 24 of the LPI reinforces this boundary by limiting protection to the external appearance of the design, expressly excluding the product itself and its utilitarian function.

Administrative practice has further confirmed this position by uniformly rejecting design applications where any functional feature is claimed. The IP Office has also clarified that branding and other commercial elements are considered functional in nature and therefore fall outside the scope of industrial design protection.

As trade secrets are not specifically regulated under the LPI, the primary legal basis for trade secret protection is Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Under the TRIPS framework, protection extends to undisclosed information such as formulas, processes, source code, manufacturing methods, technical data, customer or supplier information, and pricing or business strategies, against disclosure, acquisition or use without consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices.

To qualify, the information must satisfy three requirements:

• not be generally known or readily accessible;
• have commercial value by virtue of its secrecy; and
• be subject to reasonable measures to preserve its confidentiality.

In the absence of a dedicated trade secrets statute, businesses should ensure that confidential information is disclosed only under express confidentiality obligations, with thorough documentation of disclosures and robust internal controls in place to support any future claim in the event of misappropriation. Accordingly, parties should reinforce protection contractually, including through express confidentiality undertakings and, where appropriate, arbitration clauses for the resolution of disputes.

Owners may satisfy the “reasonable measures” requirement set out in Article 39(2) of the TRIPS Agreement by implementing the following:

• confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements;
• confidentiality clauses in employment and contractor arrangements;
• access restrictions;
• internal need-to-know protocols;
• password controls; and
• clear policies on handling confidential information.

Disclosure to employees or third parties does not automatically destroy protection, provided that the disclosure is made on a confidential basis and remains limited to what is necessary. By contrast, if the information is shared without adequate confidentiality restrictions, or becomes generally known or readily accessible to persons in the relevant trade, it may no longer satisfy the secrecy requirement under Article 39(2) of the TRIPS Agreement.

Pursuant to Article 39(2) of the TRIPS Agreement, misappropriation of a trade secret consists of the disclosure, acquisition or use of undisclosed information without the right-holder’s consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices. The provision makes it clear that this includes, at a minimum, conduct such as breach of contract, breach of confidence, inducement to breach, and acquisition by third parties who knew, or were grossly negligent in failing to know, that such practices were involved. In practice, this would extend to situations such as:

• an employee taking confidential files to a competitor;
• a joint-venture partner using shared know-how outside the agreed purpose; or
• a competitor exploiting information obtained through a confidentiality breach.

There is no fixed statutory term for trade secret protection; the protection lasts as long as the information remains secret and continues to meet the three requirements of Article 39(2) of the TRIPS Agreement. While authorised disclosure that is made on a confidential basis and subject to appropriate restrictions does not end protection, accidental or unrestricted disclosure may destroy protection if the information becomes generally known or readily accessible to persons in the relevant trade.

Without a dedicated legislative framework governing trade secret enforcement, relief for misappropriation is typically sought under general civil, contractual and unfair competition principles, and may include injunctive relief and damages.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

Venezuelan law does not recognise an EU-style sui generis database right or any equivalent standalone protection for databases based solely on the investment made in obtaining, verifying or presenting data. As a result, protection for datasets must be assessed through other legal frameworks, principally copyright and, to a lesser extent, trade secret.

• Copyright protection – The LDA protects original databases and compilations only where, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, they qualify as a personal creation. The same statute also protects computer programs, which may help protect certain software-related elements surrounding a database, although not the raw data itself.
• Trade secret protection – Trade secret protection may apply under Article 39(2) of the TRIPS Agreement, provided the information is secret, has commercial value by virtue of its secrecy and is subject to reasonable measures to preserve confidentiality. See 5.1 Legal Framework and Protectable Information and 5.2 Reasonable Measures and Confidentiality.

The current legal framework contains no specific anti-scraping rule or text-and-data-mining regime. The permissibility of scraping or data extraction therefore must be assessed under the general principles applicable to whichever legal basis is implicated:

• copyright, where the extraction reproduces protected expressive selection or arrangement;
• contract, where it violates website terms, platform rules or access conditions; and
• trade secret, where non-public datasets are extracted or used without authorisation.

The Artificial Intelligence Bill (Anteproyecto de Ley de Inteligencia Artificial, the “AI Bill”), which has not yet been enacted, does not establish a dedicated scraping regime or proprietary rights in data.

Venezuelan law currently contains no provisions specifically addressing the authorship or inventorship of AI-assisted or AI-generated outputs. The governing IP statutes, the LPI and the LDA, both pre-date modern machine learning and proceed on the basis of a human creative model, expressly defining inventors and authors as natural persons.

The nation’s broader AI framework likewise does not expressly address questions of authorship or inventorship. At present, that framework consists of the AI Bill, which was approved in first discussion before the National Assembly in November in 2024 but has not yet been enacted, and the Code of Ethics for the Responsible Development and Application of Artificial Intelligence (Código de Ética para el Desarrollo y Aplicación Responsable de la Inteligencia Artificial, the “Code of Ethics”), issued in February 2026.

The AI Bill is expected to establish binding obligations once enacted, with its current focus centred on:

• consent;
• privacy;
• transparency;
• security; and
• the responsible handling of data.

On the other hand, the Code of Ethics is a non-binding instrument that sets out nine guiding principles, including:

• human-centred AI;
• equity and non-discrimination;
• environmental responsibility;
• security;
• privacy;
• transparency;
• accountability;
• open science; and
• excellence.

Although its accountability principle makes clear that liability for AI-driven outcomes ultimately remains with human actors, it is silent on ownership or IP entitlement. Even so, the Code of Ethics implies a human-centred approach to attribution. Neither instrument, however, expressly addresses attribution, inventorship, authorship or ownership of AI-generated outputs.

In the absence of clear statutory or administrative guidance, ownership of AI-generated outputs should be managed through carefully drafted contracts and internal policies. Where AI forms part of the creative or inventive process, parties should do the following:

• clearly allocate rights in the resulting outputs;
• secure appropriate assignments from employees and contractors;
• ensure sufficient human involvement in the creative or inventive process to preserve the prospect of intellectual property protection; and
• consider including arbitration clauses in the relevant agreements.

The use of unauthorised copyright-protected material or trade secrets in model training may give rise to liability under the applicable protection frameworks, but only to the extent that such use constitutes infringement of those specific rights. There is no standalone statute addressing intellectual property rights in training data or model outputs.

The AI Bill does not confer proprietary rights in training data or specifically regulate the use of protected material for model training. If enacted, it would however impose standards concerning the quality, representativeness and handling of data. The penalties contemplated by the AI Bill are tied to the level of harm caused by the use of AI rather than to the unauthorised acquisition or use of the underlying data as such.

The unauthorised use of protected intellectual property in model training may give rise to the remedies available under the relevant protection framework. Where a dataset qualifies for copyright protection, unauthorised use for model training may expose the user to civil and criminal liability, unless a statutory exception applies. See 3.6 Limitations, Exceptions and Defences and 3.7 Copyright Enforcement and Remedies – “Enforcement Framework”. Likewise, misappropriation of trade secrets in model development may give rise to liability under general civil, contractual and unfair competition principles. See 5.5 Enforcement and Remedies.

To minimise exposure, companies should:

• adopt clear policies on acceptable data sources;
• train personnel on confidentiality and data-use restrictions; and
• maintain auditable records showing how data was collected, processed and used throughout model training.

Patent Versus Trade Secret Protection

The factors most commonly influencing the choice between patent and trade secret protection are:

• whether public disclosure is commercially acceptable;
• whether the subject matter can be reverse engineered once commercialised;
• the desired duration of protection; and
• the relative ease of enforcement.

A patent offers a defined term of exclusivity, but requires full disclosure of the invention or, at a minimum, disclosure of sufficient information such that another may reproduce the invention. A trade secret, by contrast, may last indefinitely, but only for so long as the information remains secret, has commercial value because of its secrecy, and is subject to reasonable measures to preserve confidentiality.

Trade Dress

The choice between industrial design or industrial model protection and trade mark protection for trade dress will generally depend on whether the feature at issue is being protected for its ornamental appearance or for its ability to indicate commercial origin.

Under the LPI, protection for industrial models and designs extends to the article’s external form only and does not cover the product itself or its utility, and administrative criteria practice likewise requires such applications to claim only the object’s external aspect. Trade mark protection, by contrast, is more appropriate where the relevant feature functions as a distinctive sign identifying the commercial origin of goods or services. The choice is therefore driven by whether the subject matter is valued primarily for its ornamental appearance or for its source-identifying capacity.

Cumulative protection is available where the subject matter independently satisfies the requirements of more than one regime: for example, copyright and trade mark law, where logos, artistic elements and branding may qualify simultaneously as original artistic works and as distinctive signs identifying commercial origin, with each regime operating independently according to its own requirements, scope and remedies.

By contrast, certain regimes are mutually exclusive when the subject matter satisfies a requirement of one regime that by definition is precluded from protection by another. Patent and trade secret protection cannot subsist simultaneously over the same subject matter, as patent protection requires public disclosure, which is fundamentally incompatible with the secrecy that trade secret protection demands. Similarly, shapes and packaging cannot benefit from both trade mark and industrial design protection simultaneously, as expressly precluded by Article 23 of the LPI and given that signs functioning as badges of commercial origin are generally treated as functional for industrial design purposes.

Confidential know-how and technical information may be protected as trade secrets before filing a patent application to the extent they satisfy the conditions for protection of undisclosed information under Article 39(2) of the TRIPS Agreement (see 5.1 Legal Framework and Protectable Information). However, once the application is published, the information disclosed can no longer benefit from trade secret protection.

Nevertheless, trade secret protection may continue for ancillary or implementation know-how that was not disclosed in the patent filing and remains confidential. For the same reason, trade secret protection can survive the expiry or invalidation of a patent, but only in respect of information that was never made public through the patent system.

Administrative practice has established that shape and other trade dress features may attract trade mark protection, not as standalone elements, but as part of the overall visual configuration of a sign encompassing colour, logo elements, stylisation and layout. See 2.1 Legal Framework and Protectable Signs – “Non-Traditional Marks”.

Shape and trade dress features may alternatively qualify for protection as industrial designs provided they satisfy the requirements of distinctiveness, novelty and non-functionality. See 4.2 Requirements for Protection and 8.1 Choice of Protection and Strategic Considerations – “Trade Dress”.

However, shapes and packaging may not benefit from both trade mark and industrial design protection simultaneously, as Article 23 of the LPI makes those two forms of protection mutually exclusive. Moreover, industrial design protection is limited to non-functional features. Since trade mark protection depends on a sign’s function as a badge of commercial origin, elements protected as trade marks will be treated as functional for industrial design purposes and therefore excluded from industrial design protection. See 4.5 Functionality and Technical Features.

Logos, artistic elements and branding may attract cumulative protection under both copyright and trade mark law where the relevant feature qualifies as an original artistic work and functions as a distinctive sign identifying commercial origin. Copyright arises automatically upon creation and protects the expressive work as such, while trade mark law protects the same element in so far as it serves as a badge of origin in the marketplace. The two regimes operate independently, each according to its own requirements, scope and remedies, and domestic law imposes no hierarchy or mutual limitation between them. In practice, the applicable framework will depend on whether the element is being relied upon for its creative expression, its source-identifying function, or both.

Different IP claims may in principle be joined in the same proceedings where they are procedurally compatible and fall within the same court’s jurisdiction, subject to the ordinary rules on accumulation of actions under Articles 77 and 78 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

If multiple IP rights are found to have been infringed, the court may grant relief under each applicable regime, but local law does not provide an IP-specific rule on the aggregation of remedies. The general principle against double indemnification nevertheless applies, so a claimant should not expect separate damages awards for the same loss simply because the same conduct infringes more than one IP right.

Conflicts between national and international regimes in cross-border disputes are managed through the territorial nature of IP rights, supplemented by treaty obligations and the ordinary rules of private international law. Venezuelan courts will generally apply local law to domestic IP rights, read alongside relevant treaty obligations where applicable.

Notably, under Article 23 of the Constitution, only human rights treaties enjoy constitutional rank and take precedence over inconsistent domestic law. International agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement and the Berne Convention do not benefit from this elevated status, meaning that a domestic court would not be constitutionally compelled to apply an international treatise over domestic legislation in the event of a conflict between the two.