It is important to highlight the above-mentioned Sentence (NOMENCLATURE: 1. Judgment JUDGED: 2nd Civil Court of Santiago CAUSA ROL: C-17887-2014) in that it means, in a very simple way, to apply the transnational effectiveness of the intellectual property rights contained in the development of a web page and facilitated by a fair title, duly registered, for its effective execution.

Although, as we all know, intellectual property rights belong to their author from their mere creation, without the need for any constituent register of rights, the execution and defense of them is much more arduous and, in many occasions, requires that the right is properly documented with the registration before Organisms or Authorities with public effects, according to the legislation of each country.

The Judgment is very clear in its recitals:

SIXTH: That the conclusions in paragraphs 1. – and 2. – of the previous recital constitute the basic or foundational fact of the legal presumption established in article 8 of Law 17.336, being thus presumed that the applicant is the author of the works (in the case of marras, the design, photographs and text of the web page, since to her, according to the respective inscription before the National Property Institute Thus, if the presumption stated above is not supported by evidence to the contrary, in accordance with the rule cited above and article 47 of the Civil Code, the presumption is fully applicable, and it may be concluded that the works which are the object of the present action are the exclusive authorship of the plaintiff.

SEVENTH: In accordance with the facts established in recital 5, by reproducing on the design, photographs and text on which the present action is based, the defendant infringed Articles 18 (b), 19 and 79 (a) of Law 17,336, which, in essence, prescribe that one may not be used or exploited In this way, the penalties provided for in Articles 79,85 B and 85 K of the aforementioned Act are applicable, as will be explained below.

To finally end up sentencing,

That, the demand for sheets 75 and following is partially met, only insofar as it is:

1. – The defendant is ordered to terminate its activity contrary to Law 17.336, consisting of the unauthorized reproduction of the design, photographs and text of the website belonging to the applicant.

2. – The defendant is held liable for infringing Articles 18 (b), 19 and 79 (a) of Law 17.336, and is therefore fined for tax purposes by 5 Tax Units per Month “.

See full judgment.