Chile Strengthens Intellectual Property Protection with New Legislative Reforms

Chile is undergoing a significant legislative reform process in the intellectual property (IP) industry. Three bills currently under discussion demonstrate the legislature’s intention to strengthen the regulatory framework for the protection and enforcement of intellectual and industrial property rights, aligning with international standards and, in particular, with the commitments Chile assumed under the Free Trade Agreement with the United States (FTA).

Bills currently under review

Bill against piracy and compliance with the FTA with the United States
Chile’s Chamber of Deputies has reactivated a bill aimed at combating piracy, raising protection standards to meet the requirements established in the treaty signed with the United States. This initiative seeks to close regulatory gaps that have been identified as insufficient, particularly regarding sanctions for copyright infringements and enforcement mechanisms.

From a technical standpoint, one of the most relevant aspects of this bill is the introduction of a legal definition of "technological protection measures" (TPMs), along with the classification of their circumvention as a punishable act. TPMs are technical mechanisms implemented by copyright holders to control access to or use of protected works. Concrete examples include digital rights management (DRM) systems used by streaming platforms to prevent the unauthorized downloading of content, region codes in video games, or encryption systems that protect software and e books. The bill seeks to penalize both the direct circumvention of these measures and the commercialization of devices or services designed to bypass them, thus aligning with the standard established in Chapter 17 of the FTA.

Bill to strengthen criminal prosecution of trademark counterfeiting
This initiative proposes to reinforce the mechanisms for criminal prosecution related to the counterfeiting of trademarks. The bill includes amendments that would allow the Public Prosecutor’s Office to act more directly and effectively in the investigation and sanctioning of these activities, establishing more expedited procedures for the seizure of counterfeit products. Currently, criminal prosecution of these offenses faces significant evidentiary obstacles and timeframes that allow infringing merchandise to disperse.

As an example, consider the case of a company that owns a sports apparel brand and detects the mass sale of counterfeit products in informal markets: under the proposed regime, the Public Prosecutor could act more swiftly in obtaining seizure orders and identifying distribution networks, without relying exclusively on a complaint filed by the affected rights holder.