Subject: Fw: TM-38482-VE-NF[2] - Venezuela - close your file - PLAN CACAO / trademark rejection confirmed - DL for nullity action: April 1, 2026
From: Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]>
To: Magdaly Aguilar <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]>, Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]>, Jose Bueno <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:00:21 +0000

Magda porfa inactivemos este caso.

José, es posible que lleguen instrucciones para solicitar esto, estemos pendientes de la plataforma de Nestlé en los próximos días.

Gracias,

Obtener Outlook para Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Sosina Moges,CH-Vevey <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 4:10:17 AM
To: Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]>
Cc: Stanić,Jelena,CH-Vevey <[email-masked]>; Application, BrandIP.Filing <[email-masked]>; Application, FC-LEGAL GED Memotech <[email-masked]>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: TM-38482-VE-NF[2] - Venezuela - close your file - PLAN CACAO / trademark rejection confirmed - DL for nullity action: April 1, 2026

Dear Hillmer,

Thank you for your detailed update and assessment.

Please note that after reviewing the matter internally, we confirm that we do not wish to pursue further action regarding the PLAN CACAO application. You may therefore proceed to close your file.

We also agree with your suggestion to move forward with a new filing for the logo. Our instructions will follow in due course.

Best regards,

Sosina

When replying, email subject line must be structured the following way & “short description” part should be amended based on the content of the email sent.

Example : SPN ref – Short description - Due date for response (if any) - Country – Trademark vs. Third Party Trademark – Name of the Third Party

Sosina Moges

IP Paralegal

Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.

Avenue Nestlé 55

1800 Vevey, Switzerland

P +41 21 924 25 18

[Nestlé logo for signature]

From: Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 4:11 PM
To: Cokic,Milica,CH-Vevey <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Stanić,Jelena,CH-Vevey <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Application, BrandIP.Filing <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Application, FC-LEGAL GED Memotech <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; lhenriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: RE: TM-38482-VE-NF[2] - Venezuela - Decision on Appeal - PLAN CACAO / trademark rejection confirmed - DL for nullity action: April 1, 2026

This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER. BE CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments.

________________________________

Dear sirs,

Just to send you a kind reminder about this case.

Best regards,

________________________________

De: Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Enviado: lunes, 26 de enero de 2026 19:24
Para: Cokic,Milica,CH-Vevey <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Stanić,Jelena,CH-Vevey <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Application, TM Filings <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Application, FC-LEGAL GED Memotech <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Asunto: TM-38482-VE-NF[2] - Venezuela - Decision on Appeal - PLAN CACAO / trademark rejection confirmed - DL for nullity action: April 1, 2026

Dear Sirs,

We hope this email finds you well.

We regret to inform you that we have received an unfavorable decision regarding the trademark application PLAN CACAO No. 2013-002122 in class 30 (your reference: TM-38482-VE-NF[2]), which results in the trademark being denied once again.

Background:

  *   As you may recall, this trademark was denied in Official Gazette No. 544 dated December 2013, because the Trademark Office considered it descriptive of the characteristics of the goods identified in class 30.

  *   A Motion for Reconsideration was filed against this decision, but unfortunately, the Trademark Office reviewed the case and reaffirmed its decision to deny the trademark in Official Gazette No. 640 of 2025.

  *   A Hierarchical Appeal was filed against the aforementioned decision before the Ministry of Commerce. Now, this authority has decided to confirm the Trademark Office's decision; that is, to ratify that the application PLAN CACAO is descriptive of the products it intends to protect in class 30 and, therefore, cannot be granted.

Our assessment:

The Ministry of Commerce based its decision on the alleged descriptiveness of the mark, consistent with the previous rulings, despite the arguments presented in each appeal asserting that this is an evocative mark rather than a descriptive one. These arguments were further supported by the fact that SPN already owns registrations for “Cocoa Plan” (in English) in several classes, including Class 30, as well as registrations for “Plan Cacao” in other classes.

Unfortunately, this decision brings an end to the case before administrative bodies. Should you wish to appeal, the only legal alternative remaining is a nullity action before the Supreme Court of Justice, which could be filed before April 1, 2026.

However, a nullity action is a full judicial proceeding involving the filing of a lawsuit, evidence collection and presentation phases, summoning various administrative authorities (Ministry of Commerce, Trademark Office, Public Prosecutor's Office), oral hearings, reports, and a final judgment. This process lasts a minimum of 2 years and involves costs that can be around US$ 10,000 for the entire trial, depending on the complexity and necessary procedures.

Due to the costs involved, we would not advise a nullity lawsuit as a first option; furthermore, considering current criteria, we believe the probability of success could not exceed 50%. Instead, if you maintain an interest in the PLAN CACAO mark in class 30, we suggest a more economically viable approach.

  *   Filing a new application containing other distinctive elements to increase the chances of registration—for example: NESTLÉ PLAN CACAO or a logo  , without claiming exclusive protection over the term 'CACAO' apart from the mark as a whole.

Considering that the company holds multiple registrations for NESTLÉ, we believe this application would have much better prospects for success.

We look forward to your comments and instructions on this matter.

Sincerely,