Bolivia / Casos nacionales
Auto Supremo 810/2024
Casos nacionales. La inclusión en esta ficha no convierte una referencia extranjera en una decisión nacional. Se conserva el estado y el alcance de la fuente.
Expediente y fuentes
- Nombre
- Auto Supremo 810/2024
- Cita
- O-4-21-S
- Tribunal
- Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Civil
- Instancia
- última instancia
- Fechas
- Decisión
- 2024-07-22
- Estado
- resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
- Resultado
- Cassation appeal declared INFUNDADO; Auto de Vista 181/2024 remained in place; costs and litigation expenses imposed on appellants under CPC art. 223.V.2.
- Resumen
- The Sala Civil rejected the cassation appeal. It found no demonstrated individual or exclusive authorship in the name and no error under Ley 1322 arts. 8–9; the mark/name issues did not support the requested prohibition.
- Antecedentes
- Two Oruro musical associations disputed use of the expressions Unión Pagador, Unión Pagador de Oruro and Poderosa Unión Pagador Fundadores. Demetrio Cleofé Choque Mamani asserted personal authorship of the name, while the institutional claim invoked signs and a registered mark. The record showed prior proposals and deliberation among associates rather than exclusive individual authorship.
- Historia procesal
- Accumulation ordered 2016-11-22 and ratified 2017-03-08.,Auto de Vista 23/2018 of 2018-02-16 reversed an initial incompetence/arbitration ruling and allowed the civil case to proceed.,Trial judgment 02/2020 of 2020-01-13 denied the relevant claims.,Auto de Vista 239/2020 of 2020-11-20 confirmed; TSJ requested TJCA interpretation, producing 97-IP-2021 on 2021-08-25.,Auto Supremo 177/2024 of 2024-03-12 annulled Auto de Vista 239/2020 for appellate incongruence and ordered a new merits ruling.,Auto de Vista 181/2024 of 2024-04-24 again confirmed the trial judgment with costs.,Auto Supremo 810/2024 of 2024-07-22 declared the second cassation appeal unfounded, with costs.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Whether the claimant proved individual/exclusive authorship and a protectable basis in the group name, and whether use of the competing denomination/sign infringed claimed rights.
- Criterio
- The Sala Civil rejected the cassation appeal. It found no demonstrated individual or exclusive authorship in the name and no error under Ley 1322 arts. 8–9; the mark/name issues did not support the requested prohibition.
- Fundamento decisivo
- The court treated authorship as a natural-person and evidentiary question. On the actual record, the expression emerged from collective discussion and earlier proposals, so the claimant did not prove the exclusive individual authorship asserted. The separate signs analysis applied Decision 486 and priority/use principles.
- Límites
- No generative-AI system, prompt, autonomous output or AI-assisted editing was before the court.,The court's language that recognition belongs to SENAPI arose in a mixed name/mark dispute and must not displace Ley 1322 art. 2 or R.A. 021/2016 art. 6, which make copyright independent of registration.,Trademark/personality registrations in the record are not copyright registrations.
- Relevancia
- autoria-output
- Referencias relacionadas
- BOL/as-177-2024
- BOL/tjca-97-ip-2021
- Peso del precedente
- Direct national apex civil merits authority on the pleaded authorship/proof question, but not an AI or general registration decision. Integración/votación: Relator: Magistrado Juan Carlos Berrios Albizu. The official excerpt and public mirror do not publish a complete panel list, vote tally or dissent; none is inferred.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- Auto Supremo 810/2024
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Civil
- Tipo
- official judicial synthesis
- Tipo de evidencia
- official judicial synthesis
- Localizador
- printed pp. 40–42
- Verificación documentada
- Sí