Our partner Eugenio Gormáz spoke with LexLatin as part of a report on the main challenges that will define the 2026 agenda in the field of intellectual and industrial property.
Last week, we reported that, in terms of intellectual property, 2026 will focus on the discussion surrounding the uses and scope of generative AI (GenAI) and the need to update intellectual property laws to address the new challenges that this growing industry constantly presents.
We also said that the IP ecosystem will be thoroughly evaluated, especially in relation to international protection within a fragmented landscape marked by divergences in national laws. We also approached several IP experts who shared their predictions of what will happen in intellectual and industrial property this year, and this is what some of them, now focused on South America, told us:
In Chile, Eugenio Gormáz, partner at Albagli Zaliasnik (AZ), highlights that the trends observed during 2025 allow us to project a 2026 marked by greater regulatory complexity, the emergence of hybrid conflicts, and growing interaction between law, technology, and corporate reputation. For this reason, he expects that the new year will be marked by “bad faith and fraud” in cases where trademark registration is part of a fraudulent structure, where infringements “will become more frequent.”
The lawyer hopes that the National Institute of Industrial Property (INAPI), the Industrial Property Court (TDPI), and civil and criminal courts will move toward criteria that evaluate not only the distinctiveness or similarity of the sign, but also the intentions and patterns of behavior of the applicant. In addition, controversies related to generative AI will begin to emerge strongly, especially with regard to works created wholly or partially by algorithms, the use of unauthorized datasets, and automated imitations of style or identity.
Likewise, the growth of digital commerce is marked by digital parasitism, the imitation of interfaces, the capture of traffic through paid advertising, and the misuse of third-party trademarks as keywords; in short, unfair competition will lead to an increase in litigation in this area, thereby affecting competitive transparency and the consumer experience.
In terms of data protection, the expert assures that 2026 will be the year of compliance and standardization to the new regulations (Law 21.719) that came into force in December and will require companies to implement robust systems of governance, breach management, data retention, and minimization.
With the new regulations, audits will be more frequent, fines more significant, and class action lawsuits more likely. In addition, there will be greater scrutiny of international transfers, profiling-based advertising, and tracking practices by digital platforms, he notes.
Gormáz also believes that Chile should move toward a more defined regulatory framework for crypto assets, especially considering the public debate that has arisen around high-risk financial advertising, the responsibility of platforms that intermediate digital assets, and the need for traceability mechanisms that provide greater transparency to the market.
Although part of this regulatory development is already underway, there is still significant room for definition regarding its specific content and how it will be applied in practice, he says.
What 2025 left behind: The most relevant cases
Eugenio Gormáz emphasizes that 2025 was a “particularly illustrative” year for az, showing how intellectual property can no longer be considered an isolated field, but rather a central component of the integrity of any business. This is precisely why one of the most significant cases his firm faced involved a third party creating a parallel commercial identity structure, consisting simultaneously of trademarks registered in bad faith, a website that imitated the aesthetics and narrative of the legitimate owner, and a domain name that directly evoked the main brand.
What was striking about this case, he points out, was how it highlighted a growing phenomenon: the professionalization of digital impersonation, which has moved beyond traditional “rudimentary” phishing to become a practice that copies logos, campaigns, color schemes, product sheets, and even navigation structures to give consumers the feeling that they are interacting with the legitimate brand.
This case required simultaneous analysis and action on multiple fronts, as the infringer had applied for and obtained trademark registrations in various classes, apparently to justify the fraudulent operation. This led us to invoke traditional grounds such as unregistrability due to exploitation of another’s reputation and bad faith as a defect in trademark consent, but applying them to a scenario where the infringement occurred in the digital realm and had an immediate impact on real consumers.
Unlike traditional trademark disputes, where the damage is predominantly reputational or economic to the brand, this case involved coordinating actions not only from an IP perspective, but also from consumer protection, personal data, and cybersecurity perspectives, because consumers were transferring money and personal data to a fake site. This case forced the firm to rethink the way it litigates in this area.
This case was a prime example of the type of challenges that trademark owners will face in the coming years, where the registration of a confusingly similar trademark becomes only the tip of the iceberg of a broader digital fraud ecosystem, he says.
You can read the full article here.
