Giselle Reuben: Latin America’s voice at INTA and the global challenges of trademark enforcement

Giselle Reuben, a Partner at BLP in San José, Costa Rica, has built a career combining intellectual property practice with extensive involvement in some of the sector’s principal international professional organisations. She joined BLP in 2006 and became a Partner in 2014. Her practice focuses on Intellectual Property and Sanitary Registration of Products, with extensive experience in protecting and enforcing IP rights across Central America and other jurisdictions.

Her institutional involvement has been equally extensive. She is a founding member of APPICR, has been involved with ASIPI, represents FICPI before the Standing Advisory Committee before the European Patent Office, and has also participated in UCCAEP, the International Bar Association (IBA) and other professional organisations.

A particularly important part of her international career has been her work with the International Trademark Association (INTA). For the 2026–2027 term, Reuben serves as Vice Chair of INTA’s Enforcement Committee, following years of involvement in initiatives concerning enforcement, judicial administration and engagement with the judiciary. Her experience includes organising Judges’ Workshops and training programmes in jurisdictions including Costa Rica, Argentina, Chile, Jordan, Greece, Brazil, India, Turkey and several Asian countries.

In this exclusive interview with Latin Counsel, Reuben discusses from first-hand experience the evolution of international trademark enforcement, counterfeiting and e-commerce, cooperation between courts, authorities and rights holders, the impact of artificial intelligence and Latin America’s growing influence within the global intellectual property community.

LATIN COUNSEL: You have been involved with INTA for many years and now serve as Vice Chair of its Enforcement Committee for the 2026–2027 term. What does taking on this leadership role mean to you personally and professionally?

Giselle Reuben: It is both an honor and a significant responsibility. INTA has been an important part of my professional life for many years, so taking on a leadership role within the Enforcement Committee feels like a natural progression of that involvement.

Professionally, it gives me the opportunity to contribute to discussions that go well beyond individual cases or jurisdictions and to help address enforcement issues from a truly international perspective. Personally, it is particularly meaningful to me to represent Latin America and Costa Rica in these discussions and to bring the experience of our region to the table.

LATIN COUNSEL: How has your involvement with INTA evolved over the years, and which experiences within the Association have had the greatest influence on your professional career?

Giselle Reuben: My involvement has evolved considerably. I started, as many practitioners do, by attending meetings and participating in committee activities. Over time, I became increasingly involved in substantive projects, particularly those related to enforcement, judicial administration and engagement with the judiciary.

One of the most influential experiences has undoubtedly been working on INTA’s initiatives involving judges. It has allowed me to understand enforcement not only from the perspective of practitioners and rights holders, but also from the perspective of those who ultimately have to interpret the law, weigh the evidence and issue decisions. It has also given me the opportunity to build relationships with extraordinary professionals from many jurisdictions, which has greatly enriched my own practice.

LATIN COUNSEL: INTA brings together trademark professionals, companies, law firms, government authorities and other stakeholders from jurisdictions around the world. What makes the Association particularly valuable in an area of law that is inherently international?

Giselle Reuben: Brands are global, but trademark rights remain largely territorial. That tension makes an organization such as INTA particularly valuable.

A company may encounter essentially the same infringement in ten countries and face ten different legal systems, procedural rules and enforcement realities. INTA provides a forum where rights holders, practitioners, judges, customs officials, government authorities and other stakeholders can exchange experiences and identify approaches that work across jurisdictions.

That exchange of perspectives is extremely valuable because many of the challenges we face today simply cannot be addressed effectively within national boundaries.

LATIN COUNSEL: The Enforcement Committee develops and advocates INTA policy concerning the administrative and judicial enforcement of trademarks. What do you see as the most important enforcement issues facing trademark owners internationally today?

Giselle Reuben: I would highlight the globalization and digitalization of infringement. Counterfeiters can now reach consumers in multiple jurisdictions almost instantaneously through e-commerce platforms, social media and other digital channels.

Another major challenge is the fragmentation of enforcement mechanisms. Rights holders may have strong substantive rights but still face slow proceedings, insufficient remedies or difficulties obtaining and preserving evidence.

Effective border enforcement also remains critical. Customs authorities are often the first line of defense against counterfeit goods, and stronger cooperation between rights holders and customs agencies can have an enormous impact.

LATIN COUNSEL: To what extent are the enforcement challenges facing businesses becoming global rather than jurisdiction-specific?

Giselle Reuben: Increasingly so. An infringement that begins in one jurisdiction can involve a manufacturer in another country, a distributor elsewhere, an online platform located in a fourth jurisdiction and consumers across dozens of markets.

This means that enforcement strategies can no longer be developed entirely country by country. Local expertise remains essential, because enforcement ultimately takes place within national legal systems, but rights holders increasingly need coordinated regional or global strategies.

LATIN COUNSEL: One of the Enforcement Committee’s objectives is to promote greater harmonisation of enforcement laws and procedures. How realistic is international harmonisation in practice when judicial systems and legal traditions differ so substantially from one country to another?

Giselle Reuben: Complete harmonisation is probably neither realistic nor necessary. Legal traditions, procedural systems and institutional structures differ significantly.

However, meaningful convergence is absolutely achievable. There are fundamental principles on which jurisdictions can move closer together: effective remedies, timely proceedings, preservation of evidence, proportionality, appropriate border measures and mechanisms for addressing repeat infringers.

The objective should not necessarily be identical legislation everywhere, but rather greater consistency in the effectiveness and predictability of enforcement.

LATIN COUNSEL: Where do you currently see the greatest differences between Latin America and other major markets in the enforcement of trademark rights?

Giselle Reuben: Latin America cannot be treated as a single enforcement environment, as there are significant differences among countries. However, compared with major markets such as the United States and Europe, I believe the main differences remain the speed, predictability and availability of enforcement mechanisms.

Rights holders in larger markets generally have greater access to preliminary measures, evidence-gathering tools and more deterrent remedies. There is also often greater specialization among courts and enforcement authorities, as well as more resources to address sophisticated counterfeiting and online infringement.

That said, I have seen significant progress in Latin America throughout my career. We increasingly have specialized IP authorities, more experienced judges, stronger cooperation with customs and law enforcement, and greater public-private collaboration. What I find particularly positive is the willingness across the region to learn from successful practices in other markets while adapting them to our own legal, institutional and economic realities.

LATIN COUNSEL: What can Latin American jurisdictions learn from enforcement systems elsewhere, and are there areas in which Latin America itself can provide useful models or experience to other regions?

Giselle Reuben: There is much to learn from systems that have developed specialized courts, expedited procedures, sophisticated border-enforcement mechanisms and effective frameworks for cooperation with online intermediaries.

But the exchange should not be viewed as one-directional. Latin American authorities and practitioners have extensive practical experience dealing with informal markets, complex distribution networks, border enforcement and large-scale counterfeiting. Some jurisdictions have also developed very effective cooperation among customs, prosecutors, police and rights holders.

That experience can be highly relevant to other regions facing increasingly complex counterfeit networks.

LATIN COUNSEL: You have been particularly involved in INTA initiatives concerning judicial administration and trademark litigation. How important is direct engagement between judges and the international intellectual property community?

Giselle Reuben: I believe direct engagement between judges and the international IP community is extremely valuable.

Intellectual property issues are increasingly global and constantly evolving, particularly with the growth of e-commerce, digital platforms and new technologies. Creating opportunities for judges from different jurisdictions to exchange experiences and perspectives allows them to learn how similar challenges are being addressed in different legal systems.

For practitioners, these exchanges are equally valuable, as they provide a better understanding of the practical challenges courts face when dealing with complex IP matters.

In my experience with INTA, bringing together judges and IP professionals from different countries has created very enriching discussions and a valuable exchange of experiences, particularly around emerging issues and different approaches to trademark enforcement.

LATIN COUNSEL: INTA previously recognised your contribution to the organisation of Judges’ Workshops. What have you learned from working directly on initiatives involving members of the judiciary in different jurisdictions?

Giselle Reuben: I have had the opportunity, together with Iris Günther, the liaison of our committee, to organize Judges’ Workshops and training programs in a number of jurisdictions, including Costa Rica, Argentina, Chile, Jordan, Greece, Brazil, India, Turkey and several Asian countries among others. This has been one of the most rewarding aspects of my work with INTA.

One of the most important lessons I have learned is that judges across very different legal systems often face remarkably similar challenges, from evaluating evidence and assessing damages to dealing with new forms of digital infringement.

I have also seen firsthand how valuable the exchange of experiences can be. Judges are genuinely interested in learning how their counterparts in other jurisdictions approach similar issues. These discussions create a unique opportunity to share practical perspectives, compare different approaches and build connections across jurisdictions

LATIN COUNSEL: How much difference can judicial education and greater international dialogue between judges make to the practical enforcement of intellectual property rights?

Giselle Reuben: I believe it can make a significant difference. Keeping judges up to date is particularly important in intellectual property, an area that is constantly evolving and where judges are increasingly confronted with issues involving new technologies, digital platforms and forms of infringement that often extend beyond national borders.

At the same time, international dialogue gives judges the opportunity to exchange experiences, compare approaches and discuss practical solutions with colleagues facing similar challenges in different legal systems. From my experience with INTA’s Judges’ Workshops, these exchanges are particularly valuable because they address not only the latest legal developments, but also the practical realities of enforcing IP rights.

Ultimately, continuous updating and international dialogue contribute to a better understanding of complex and emerging IP issues, more effective and consistent enforcement, and stronger connections among judges from different jurisdictions.

LATIN COUNSEL: From your experience, what are the principal obstacles that rights holders face when they need to enforce a trademark across several jurisdictions at the same time?

Giselle Reuben: Coordination is one of the biggest challenges. Different jurisdictions have different standards of evidence, procedural requirements, timelines, remedies and approaches to interim relief.

Cost is another important consideration. A multinational enforcement strategy can quickly become expensive, so rights holders must determine where enforcement will have the greatest strategic impact.

The key is to avoid treating each country as an isolated case. A coordinated strategy allows evidence, intelligence and successful legal arguments from one jurisdiction to inform actions elsewhere.

LATIN COUNSEL: Counterfeiting has become increasingly international and technologically sophisticated. How has the enforcement landscape changed with the growth of e-commerce, social media and digital marketplaces?

Giselle Reuben: It has changed fundamentally. Traditionally, enforcement focused heavily on physical markets, importers, distributors and retail locations. Those remain important, but today an infringer can reach thousands of consumers without maintaining a conventional physical presence in the market.

Online listings can disappear and reappear under different accounts almost immediately. Social media, messaging applications and digital payment systems can also facilitate transactions that are difficult to trace.

As a result, enforcement increasingly requires technology, intelligence gathering and cooperation with intermediaries, in addition to traditional litigation and administrative actions.

LATIN COUNSEL: Does effective trademark enforcement today require a fundamentally different relationship between brand owners, lawyers, online platforms, customs authorities, regulators and law enforcement agencies?

Giselle Reuben: Yes, I believe collaboration among all these stakeholders has become essential. Trademark infringement, particularly counterfeiting, is increasingly complex and often involves multiple jurisdictions, online and offline channels, and sophisticated distribution networks.

Each stakeholder has a different role and perspective. Brand owners have detailed knowledge of their products and markets, online platforms have access to important data and technological tools, while customs authorities and law enforcement agencies are critical in identifying shipments and disrupting counterfeit networks.

In my experience, the most effective enforcement strategies are those where there is open communication, exchange of information and coordinated action between the public and private sectors. Today, successful trademark enforcement is less about isolated actions and increasingly about building strong channels of cooperation that allow stakeholders to respond more quickly and effectively.

LATIN COUNSEL: Artificial intelligence is creating new possibilities for infringement but also new tools for detecting and combating it. How is AI beginning to affect trademark enforcement, and what issues do you believe INTA and the wider IP community will need to address?

Giselle Reuben: AI presents both significant opportunities and significant challenges.

From an enforcement perspective, AI can help identify suspicious listings, analyze large volumes of marketplace data, detect patterns across jurisdictions and prioritize enforcement targets. These tools could make enforcement considerably more efficient.

At the same time, generative AI can make it easier to create convincing counterfeit advertising, fake websites, misleading content and other forms of infringement at scale. It also raises difficult questions regarding intermediary responsibility, evidence, attribution and the appropriate legal framework for AI-generated content.

INTA and the broader IP community will have an important role in ensuring that legal frameworks evolve without losing sight of fundamental trademark principles such as consumer protection, source identification and fair competition.

LATIN COUNSEL: INTA has a genuinely global membership. As a Costa Rican lawyer in a senior leadership position within the Association, how important is it that Latin American perspectives are represented in the development of international IP policy?

Giselle Reuben: It is essential. International IP policy is stronger when it reflects the realities of jurisdictions with different levels of economic development, institutional capacity and legal traditions.

Latin America represents important markets, sophisticated IP systems and a very active community of practitioners, companies and authorities. At the same time, our region faces particular enforcement challenges that need to be part of global discussions.

For me, being able to contribute that perspective while also learning from colleagues from other regions is one of the most valuable aspects of my role.

LATIN COUNSEL: Do you think Latin American practitioners have become more influential within the international intellectual property community over the course of your career?

Giselle Reuben: Definitely. Latin American practitioners today have a much stronger presence in international associations, policy discussions and leadership positions.

I also believe there has been a shift in perception. Latin America is increasingly viewed not simply as a region where international standards are implemented, but as a source of sophisticated practitioners, jurisprudence, policy experience and innovative approaches to IP protection.

There is still room for greater participation, but the progress has been significant.

LATIN COUNSEL: Beyond the technical work of its committees, how important are the professional relationships created through INTA in building an international IP practice and serving clients whose brands operate across multiple jurisdictions?

Giselle Reuben: They are invaluable. Intellectual property is fundamentally international, and no lawyer can personally be an expert in every jurisdiction.

Through INTA, you develop relationships with professionals whom you come to know and trust over many years. When a client suddenly has an enforcement problem in another country, having that network means you know whom to call.

Those relationships go beyond referrals. They allow practitioners to exchange experiences, compare strategies and coordinate complex matters across jurisdictions much more effectively.

LATIN COUNSEL: Your career combines private practice at BLP with substantial involvement in international professional organisations. What advice would you give younger IP lawyers who want to develop that kind of international profile and contribute meaningfully to organisations such as INTA?

Giselle Reuben: My first piece of advice would be to get involved and participate actively rather than simply attend. International organizations provide extraordinary opportunities, but the real value comes from contributing—volunteering for projects, joining committees, speaking, writing and being willing to do the work behind the scenes.

For me, however, one of the most rewarding aspects has been the meaningful relationships built along the way. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to connect with professionals from around the world, many of whom have become not only trusted colleagues but also close friends. Collaborating on projects, exchanging experiences and learning from people with different legal, cultural and professional perspectives has broadened my own outlook and has been an invaluable part of my professional and personal development.

I would also tell younger lawyers to be patient and genuine. An international profile is built gradually, through consistent work, reliability and meaningful contributions, but also through relationships, and experiences that stay with you throughout your career.

LATIN COUNSEL: Looking ahead to the remainder of your 2026–2027 term as Vice Chair of the Enforcement Committee, what would you personally like to have contributed to INTA and to the international trademark community by the end of that period?

Giselle Reuben: I would like to contribute to making enforcement more practical, collaborative and internationally coordinated.

I am particularly interested in continuing to strengthen engagement with the judiciary and enforcement authorities, promoting greater exchange of experiences across jurisdictions and ensuring that Latin American perspectives remain part of the global conversation.

Ultimately, I would like my contribution to be reflected in stronger cooperation across jurisdictions, meaningful advocacy where it is needed, and practical progress toward more effective and harmonized trademark enforcement.

Key facts

• Giselle Reuben is a Partner at BLP in Costa Rica.

• She serves as Vice Chair of INTA’s Enforcement Committee for the 2026–2027 term.

• Her work with INTA has focused particularly on judicial engagement, judicial administration and enforcement.

• Her international institutional involvement includes APPICR, ASIPI, FICPI, UCCAEP and the IBA.

• The interview addresses cross-border enforcement, counterfeiting, e-commerce, judicial cooperation, artificial intelligence and Latin America’s growing influence in international IP policy.