Precautionary measures for unfair competition between plant-breeding seed companiesMedidas cautelares por competencia desleal entre fitomejoradoras de semillas

II.- Appeal by the plaintiff.- The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the rejection of the request to order the cessation of the production, packaging, and sale of sunflower, lisianthus, and dragon seeds, recalling that the matter was filed as a civil proceeding, in order to protect intellectual and industrial property, and to prevent the practice of unfair competition, in accordance with the rules governing this matter. Although it was determined that it should proceed via summary proceedings, it must be based on Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor), since these are acts contrary to the rules of proper and good commercial practices, and therefore they request a cessation of production in the agrarian venue as a precautionary measure, which is neither reckless nor disproportionate, but rather a necessary measure for the effective protection of SAKATA's rights, seeking to prevent greater harm. The summary proceedings, they argue, are the only procedural means to judicially compel the unfair competitors to suspend the illicit activity, to the detriment of their company's intellectual property. The lawsuit, they argue, has the appearance of good law (apariencia de buen derecho), and there is a danger of damages caused by the exploitation of their intellectual property by third parties unrelated to the company. The requested precautionary measure, they argue, is not atypical in intellectual property matters. The defendants produce, they state, using intellectual property that is not their own, since the production by Flores and Arita, through their company, is based on knowledge acquired when both worked for SAKATA, and therefore there is a direct correspondence between the object of the proceeding and the requested measure. Therefore, they request the attachment (embargo) of the defendants' productive assets and the suspension of all productive activity (see folios 204-208).

III.- Appeal by the defendants.- The attorney for Laura Flores Trejos (see folio 197), Yo Arita, and Florarte del Sol S.A. appealed, arguing that from the evidence offered by the plaintiff, there is no indication of ownership of one or several industrial secrets allegedly infringed by his clients, or of any deposit before the Industrial Property Registry (Registro de Propiedad industrial). The measures, he argues, were ordered arbitrarily because they do not show a close relationship with the effectiveness of a favorable ruling. The plaintiff, he argues, does not prove that the activity of his clients may pose a danger to Sakata, since it does not demonstrate ownership of the industrial creation, nor has it specified the alleged damages suffered. Therefore, in his opinion, the requirements for ordering the preventive attachment of assets are not met. For this reason, he requests that the resolution be revoked and the requested precautionary measure be rejected, as it exceeds the powers of the Judge (see folios 213-215).

IV- Procedural considerations.- Firstly, it must be noted that the appealed resolution, although it did grant the typical precautionary measure of preventive attachment requested by the plaintiff, in the operative part of the "Por tanto", did not expressly state what it was granting, which could be considered a nullifying defect, given that Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), in relation to Article 155 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), require concrete rulings in the "por tanto". Despite the foregoing, since neither party invoked the defect, it is not appropriate for this Tribunal to declare nullity for nullity's sake at this procedural stage. Especially since the parties are challenging substantive and not procedural aspects. Consequently. Secondly, the appealing plaintiff seeks to re-discuss the nature (agrarian or civil) of this summary proceeding for unfair competition. A matter that is amply precluded, since the First Chamber of Cassation (Sala Primera de Casación), with sound judgment, in view of the specialty of the matter, clearly indicated that this matter should be heard by the specialized Agrarian Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Agraria), a criterion it has already reiterated in other similar cases. It is not true that the Law for the Promotion of Competition (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia) or the Intellectual Property Law (Ley de Propiedad Intelectual) grant exclusive competence to the Civil Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Civil) to hear these matters, especially when it involves the production and protection of genetic varieties and their commercialization. Thirdly, this Tribunal calls the attention of the First Instance Judge because he makes a doctrinal citation, indicating only the author's name, without citing the source or the book used, but does not relate said citation to the specific case, nor does he delimit the nature of the precautionary measures he is deciding. Much less does he refer to legal norms, factual criteria, or equity (as required by Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law), regarding the remaining precautionary measures. That is, he does not analyze any element contributed to the proceeding, and simply rejects them arguing that their adoption would be anticipating a criterion. Despite the foregoing, as stated above, a nullity would lead to nothing, due to this lack of reasoning in what was resolved, given that the parties are limited to substantive aspects which will be resolved immediately.

V.- Objections of the defendants.- The grievance of the defendants is completely inadmissible, because Article 33 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law clearly establishes that "When it is deemed necessary to secure the results of the trial, the interested party may request the surety (arraigo) or preventive attachment (embargo preventivo)... The judge must limit the attachment to the assets that are absolutely essential to guarantee the right of the attaching party (embargante)." In this case, the plaintiff guaranteed the attachment, depositing 25% of the estimated amount (for eventual damages and losses). The defendants argue that the measure was dictated arbitrarily, without the plaintiff presenting title or demonstrating its industrial property. However, this is not acceptable, because the attachment is a typical measure, which only requires the deposit to be executed, and precisely the guarantee serves to cover eventual damages and losses. Regarding the constitutionality of such measures, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in Opinion (Voto) No. 355-95 at 17:33 hours on January 18, 1995, has ratified the validity of the application of attachment and other precautionary measures, in order to secure eventual damages and losses, to adequately protect the rights of the plaintiff, the consuming public, and competitors, among which the preventive attachment is included, alluding to Article 68 of the Central American Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Convenio Centroamericano para la Protección de la Propiedad Industrial). The only objection the Tribunal must accept is that the attachment must be limited to the assets that are absolutely essential to guarantee the right of the attaching party; consequently, the ruling on that point is confirmed, with the indicated caveat.

VI.- Grievances of the plaintiff.- The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the rejection of the request to order the cessation of the production, packaging, and sale of sunflower, lisianthus, and dragon seeds, to prevent the practice of unfair competition, in accordance with the rules governing this matter, in particular Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. While it is true that the cited rule indicated by the appellant refers to unfair competition and the prohibited acts between different types of companies that are considered unfair, it is not there that precautionary measures in this matter are regulated. Said precautionary measures are expressly regulated in the Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (Ley de Procedimientos de Observancia de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual), No. 8039, of October 11, 2000, and, for the case under study, in the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties (Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales) No. 8631 of February 28, 2008, regulated by Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 35677-MAG, of November 19, 2009 (Published in La Gaceta No. 6 of January 11, 2010). Since both legal regulations are identical, we transcribe the relevant rules from the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties: "ARTICLE 34.- Adoption of precautionary measures. Before initiating a process for infringement of a plant variety right, during its course, or in the execution phase, the competent judicial authority or the Office, as applicable, shall adopt the appropriate and sufficient precautionary measures to prevent a serious and difficult-to-repair injury to the right holder, and to guarantee, provisionally, the effectiveness of the final act or judgment. A precautionary measure shall only be ordered when the person requesting it proves to be the right holder or their representative. The judicial authority or the Office shall require whoever requests the measure to provide a sufficient guarantee, before it is issued, to protect the alleged infringer and prevent abuses. ARTICLE 35.- Proportionality of the measure. Any decision resolving the request for the adoption of precautionary measures must consider both the interests of third parties and the proportionality between the effects of the measure, as well as the damages and losses it may cause. ARTICLE 36.- Measures. a) The following precautionary measures, among others, may be ordered: b) The immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement. c) The attachment (embargo) of the counterfeit or illegal varieties. d) The suspension of customs clearance of the varieties referred to in subsection b) above. e) The posting, by the alleged infringer, of a bond or other sufficient guarantee." As can be observed, it is feasible to adopt precautionary measures within summary proceedings where the protection of intellectual property rights is sought, or when acts of unfair competition occur. On this topic, the Tribunal has already had the opportunity to delve deeper in a recent resolution in which it was stated: "IV.- On the Gradual System of Typical Precautionary Measures in matters of industrial property and unfair competition: The Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter LPODPI) and Articles 17 and 61 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense regulate four typical precautionary measures in this matter: the Prohibition to Innovate and/or Contract (Prohibición de Innovar y/o Contratar); the Seizure or Precautionary Attachment of Goods (Decomiso o Secuestro Precautorio de Bienes), the Suspension of Customs Clearance of Counterfeit or Illegal Goods, Materials, or Media (Suspensión del Despacho Aduanero de Mercancías, Materiales o Medios Falsificados o ilegales), and the Bond (Fianza). This is by provision of Article five, which states: "ARTICLE 5. Measures. The following precautionary measures, among others, may be ordered: a) The immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement. b) The attachment (embargo) of the counterfeit or illegal goods. c) The suspension of customs clearance of the goods, materials, or media referred to in subsection b). d) The posting, by the alleged infringer, of a bond or other sufficient guarantee." Having seen the precautionary measures requested and granted in this specific case, it is convenient to analyze the nature, content, requirements, and effects of the first two. This type of measure seeks to satisfy, on an anticipatory basis, either totally or partially, the plaintiff's substantive claim. They are called anticipatory or self-satisfying measures (medidas anticipativas o autosatisfactivas). That is why, in these measures, the danger of delay has a determining factor, to the point that the legislator has provided for this type of measure as an exception to the correlation between the precautionary and main claims, since, as the most recent Argentine procedural doctrine has maintained: "the appropriateness of self-satisfying measures is conditional upon the simultaneous concurrence of infrequent circumstances derived from an unpostponable urgency in which the time factor and promptness appear as peremptory." GALDOS (Jorge Mario). "El Contenido y el Continente de las Medidas Autosatisfactivas", in: PEYRANO (Jorge Walter) et al. Medidas Autosatisfactivas, Buenos Aires, Rubinzal-Culzoni, 2002, p.61. These measures have been questioned because they signify an early execution of the judgment through their decree. However, given that this type of measure is given in a typical form, as legislative authorization for urgent cases, to precede execution before knowledge, they require that the fumus boni iuris be fully demonstrated. We have examples of these measures not only in intellectual property matters but also in family matters, such as domestic violence measures and provisional alimony; in civil matters, such as the preventive attachment in payment order proceedings and the suspension of new construction in possessory actions; and in criminal matters, a clear example is preventive detention. In all these cases, the legislator specifies that for certain specific situations, the judge can dictate typical precautionary measures allowing him, in order to protect what is being secured, to anticipatorily apply what could be deduced in an eventual favorable judgment.- VII.- On the typical precautionary measure of Prohibition to Innovate and/or Contract: Contained in Article 5, subsection a) of the LPODPI, and normatively termed "immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement"; it is better known in comparative law as "prohibition to contract and/or innovate" (prohibición de contratar y/o innovar); since "by virtue thereof, one of the parties is ordered to refrain from entering into one or more specific contracts regarding the litigious assets or those that have been subject to attachment." DIEZ SOLIMINE (Omar Luis). Medidas Cautelares sobre Automotores, Buenos Aires, Astrea, 1999, p.153. In accordance with the provisions of Article 61 of Law 7472, this measure applies when there is a clear indication that the merchandise is illegal, adulterated, expired, or misleading to consumers, or poses a danger of causing a serious and difficult-to-repair injury to the affected industrial property right holder. The prohibition to contract is a special form of the prohibition to innovate; this precautionary measure is applied with the administrative prevention order or with the notification of the judicial resolution ordering this freezing, requiring the affected party to "remove from the counter or stand" the goods that have been frozen and to refrain from commercializing them; therefore, it constitutes and implies a true prohibition to contract. This precautionary measure, on its own, does not require the seizure of the goods (as this is the specific content of the confiscation/decomiso, as will be seen later), nor does it require these goods to be necessarily registrable or identifiable in a first moment. Its justification lies in the fact that the holder of a copyright, patent, trademark, or any industrial property right "is not satisfied with the mediate reaction of the legal system, but rather needs an immediate reaction so that irreparable damage is not caused to them, which the legislator presumes occurs due to the fact of exploiting the patent or carrying out serious and effective preparatory acts for this purpose." PEREZ DAUDI (Vicente). Las Medidas Cautelares en el Proceso de Propiedad Industrial, Barcelona, Bosch, 1996, p.186. This precautionary measure is undoubtedly of a self-satisfying or anticipatory nature, as it seeks an outcome that can also be found among the main claims of the principal proceeding, which is the cessation of the activity constituting an infringement of the regulations in this matter. But its purpose does not end there, as it fulfills a dual function: on one hand, it avoids the risk of an impossibility of specific execution of the judgment, undermined by the unfair competition conduct, and on the other hand, it prevents damage that is difficult to repair due to the difficulty of valuing and quantifying the damages, even if they are compensable. In this type of typical precautionary measure, the requirement of danger of delay (peligro de demora) constitutes any affectation of the industrial property right, also specified by the legislator in Article 28 of the LPODPI, which terms them as acts of unfair competition, namely: "In addition to the acts indicated in Article 17 of the Law on Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, No. 7472, of December 20, 1994, and its reforms, any act performed in the exercise of a commercial activity or on the occasion thereof that is contrary to honest uses and practices in commercial matters is considered unfair. Likewise, the following, among others, constitute acts of unfair competition: a) Any conduct tending to mislead regarding the origin, nature, method of manufacture, suitability for use or consumption, quantity, or other characteristics of the products or services, to take advantage of the rights of a right holder protected by this Law. b) Any conduct tending to reproduce, without authorization from the owner, trademarks, distinctive signs, and any other protected element for the benefit of its legitimate owner, to take advantage, on a commercial scale, of the results of others' effort and prestige. c) Any use of a sign whose registration is prohibited in accordance with subsections k) and q) of Article 7 of the Law on Trademarks and Distinctive Signs (Ley de marcas y signos distintivos), No. 7978, of January 6, 2000. d) The use, in commerce, of a sign whose registration is prohibited according to subsections c), d), e), g), and h) of Article 8 of the Law on Trademarks and Distinctive Signs, No. 7978, of January 6, 2000." Although the infringements are specified as a factual requirement for the decree of this measure, we must take into account the technicality with which each of these infringements may arise in the specific case. The casuistry is extremely varied in a globalized world, where forms of commerce and advertising occur in an increasingly sophisticated manner, keeping pace with technological advances, and much faster than the issuance of a precautionary measure, or worse, a final judgment. In these cases, this self-satisfying or anticipatory measure must meet the other requirement: the appearance or credibility of good law or fumus boni iuris with the petitioner's accreditation as the holder of the industrial property rights. Let us remember that in this type of measure, the precautionary claim is similar to the main claim; there is no correlation due to this identity of claims, but this does not signify the unconstitutionality of these measures, as they are provided for by the legislator for the protection of urgent cases of irreparable damage, which, ultimately, is what the law seeks to avoid by proscribing actions with the quality of infringements.-" (Tribunal Agrario, No. 173F-11 at 15:10 hours on February 22, 2011). In that case, the tribunal analyzed precautionary measures in a summary proceeding for unfair competition, concerning the use of distinctive signs, a conflict between two agro-industrial companies.

VIII.- Judgment of credibility (verosimilitud) and requirements.- The case now before us, unlike the one cited in the preceding considerando, refers rather to the apparent unfair competition between two plant-breeding (fitomejoradoras) companies of seed varieties, particularly sunflower, a matter in which the plaintiff SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. requests precautionary measures, considering that the defendants, Laura Flores Trejos and Yo Arita, former employees of the plaintiff, created a company called Florarte del Sol S.A., through which they are apparently producing and marketing sunflower seeds, of a variety identical to that of SAKATA CENTROAMERICANA S.A., even attempting to attract part of the latter company's clientele. From the evidentiary elements contributed to the proceeding, this Tribunal concludes a positive judgment of credibility, favorable to the plaintiff, in relation to the appearance of good law, which is only that—the appearance—linking to an eventual ownership of the claimed intellectual property right, presumably acknowledged by the defendants in contractual clauses prior to this judicial process, also linked to apparent confidentiality clauses. See, in this regard, the official translation of the document dated April 29, 1999, points 2 and 3 (folio 9), in relation to the commitments assumed by co-defendant Yo Arita; as well as the document dated September 21, called "Confidentiality and Property Rights Agreement" (Acuerdo de Confidencialidad y de Derechos de Propiedad), apparently acknowledged by Laura Flores Trejos in points 2 and 3 in favor of SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. (folios 23 and 24), as well as the note apparently sent by the Sakata company on September 14, 2007 (folio 26) after her resignation, reminding her of the clauses of said document. This appearance is also linked to other elements of judgment that lead to the presumption of the possible existence of unfair competition between competing companies in the improvement, production, and commercialization of sunflower varieties, which is evidenced in the copies of emails sent by Yo Arita on October 18, 2007, where reference is made to his sunflower reproduction work at SAKATA, offering the sunflower variety called #101 (folio 4), as well as the email of September 24, 2007, and September 15, 2007 (folios 5 and 6), presenting himself as General Director of Florarte del Sol S.A. It is here that the founded fear that the defendant company will cause this unfair competition is substantiated, which is related to the danger in delay (peligro en la demora)—regrettably, this precautionary measure has been delayed—because there are also elements to determine that the defendant Florarte is offering clients the sunflower species '101' (folios 1 and 2), which is apparently a variety offered and sold by Sakata (compare folios 19 to 21). Hence, there are necessary elements of judgment to grant the precautionary measure which, as the appellant rightly indicates, is a typical measure that finds its support in the rules of special legislation related to the enforcement of intellectual property, consumer protection, and the protection of plant varieties. The summary proceeding, as the appellant rightly argues, and particularly the precautionary protection, is the only procedural means to judicially compel the apparent unfair competitors to suspend the production and commercialization activity, given the founded fear that they may cause the plaintiff damage to their company's intellectual property, which may be impossible or difficult to repair. Without a doubt, in this case, there is a direct correspondence between the object of the proceeding and the typical precautionary measure requested. Furthermore, it is important to make it clear to both the plaintiff and the defendants that it will be in the final judgment on the merits where it will be determined who holds the claimed intellectual property ownership, or whether unfair competition has existed. The purpose of the precautionary measure is to anticipate, with an approximate value judgment, the eventual effects of a favorable judgment, without this necessarily meaning that the lawsuit must be upheld in the judgment. Precisely for this reason, the special legislation subjects the adoption of these measures to criteria of proportionality and reasonableness, and whoever requests the measure must provide sufficient guarantee before it is effectively adopted, to protect the alleged infringer and thus prevent abuses (see Articles 3 of the Law on Enforcement and 34 and 35 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties). Finally, this Tribunal cannot fail to rule on the arguments of the defendants, to the effect that "ownership of the intellectual property" has not been demonstrated, and since this is the requirement for adopting it, it could not be granted. However, it must be clearly stated that, in this case, there are contractual elements and sufficient documents that allow a judgment of similarity favorable to the plaintiff company, as explained above. One thing is the formal, administrative registration of an intellectual property right, in relation to a genetic variety, and quite another is its express recognition between private subjects, even through apparent confidentiality clauses. Furthermore, it must be taken into consideration that the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties was enacted in our country only on February 28, 2008, and its regulation published until January 2010, with the National Seed Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas) being responsible for regularizing said procedures to obtain the respective registration. However, due to the commitments assumed by Costa Rica in prior International Treaties (just by way of example, the Central American Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the TRIPS Agreement, the UPOV Convention), as well as other special laws (Consumer, Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Enforcement of Intellectual Property), it is evident that rules already existed that granted special precautionary protection, as recognized by the Constitutional Chamber itself in the Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber, Opinion No. 355-95 at 17:33 hours on January 18, 1995.- IX.- By virtue of the foregoing, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Consumer Protection Law (Ley de Protección del Consumidor), Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, as well as Articles 34, 35, and 36 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, the resolution of the Agrarian Court of San José (Juzgado Agrario de San José) is partially revoked, insofar as it rejected the request to suspend the acts complained of. Consequently, the lower court (a-quo) is ordered to: Immediately issue a suspension order for the production, packaging, and sale of seeds of sunflower, lisianthus, and dragon species that the defendants Arita and Flores may be carrying out, whether in their personal name or through their company Florarte del Sol S.A., primarily regarding the production and commercialization of the species '101'.- In order to guarantee eventual damages and losses and protect the alleged infringer, a bond (caución) or counter-security (contracautela) is set in the amount of four million colones, which must be deposited into the account of the Agrarian Court within eight days following the finality of this resolution.

For this reason, it requests that the resolution be revoked and the requested precautionary measure be rejected, as it exceeds the powers of the Judge (see folios 213-215) IV- Considerations of a procedural nature.- In the first place, it must be noted that the appealed resolution, although it is true that it granted the typical precautionary measure requested by the plaintiff, of preventive attachment (embargo preventivo), in the operative part of the Therefore (Por Tanto), it did not expressly indicate what it is granting, which could be considered a defect of nullity, given that Article 54 of the Agricultural Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), in relation to Article 155 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), require concrete pronouncements in the therefore. Despite the foregoing, since none of the parties invoked the defect, it is not appropriate for this Tribunal to declare nullity for nullity's sake at this procedural stage. Especially since the parties are contesting aspects of substance and not of form. Consequently. In second place, the plaintiff, the appellant, seeks to re-discuss the nature (agricultural or civil) of this summary process for unfair competition. This matter is amply precluded, for the First Chamber of Cassation (Sala Primera de Casación), with sound judgment, attending to the specialty of the matter, clearly indicated that this matter should be heard by the specialized Agricultural Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Agraria), a criterion it has already reiterated in other similar cases. It is not true that the Competition Promotion Law (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia) or the Intellectual Property Law (Ley de Propiedad Intelectual) grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Civil Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Civil) to hear these matters, especially when it involves the production and protection of genetic varieties and their commercialization. In third place, this Tribunal calls the attention of the First Instance Judge, in that he makes a doctrinal citation, indicating only the author's name, without outlining the source or the book used, but does not relate the cited reference to the specific case, nor does he distinguish the nature of the precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) he is resolving. Much less does he make reference to legal norms, to criteria of fact, or of equity (as required by Article 54 of the Agricultural Jurisdiction Law), regarding the remaining precautionary measures. That is, he does not analyze any element provided to the process, and simply rejects them arguing that their adoption would be anticipating a criterion. Despite the foregoing, as stated above, a nullity would lead to nothing, due to that lack of what was resolved, given that the parties are limited to substantive aspects that will be resolved immediately.

V.- Claims of the defendant.- The grievance of the defendant is entirely improper, because Article 33 of the Agricultural Jurisdiction Law clearly establishes that "When deemed necessary to secure the results of the judgment, the interested party may request arraigo (arraigo) or preventive attachment (embargo preventivo)...The judge must limit the attachment (embargo) to the assets that are indispensable to guarantee the right of the attaching party." In this case, the plaintiff guaranteed the attachment (embargo), depositing 25% of the estimation (for eventual damages and losses (daños y perjuicios)). The defendant argues that the measure was arbitrarily ordered, without the plaintiff presenting title or demonstrating its industrial property. However, this is not acceptable, because the attachment (embargo) is a typical measure, which only requires the deposit to carry it out, and precisely the guarantee serves to cover eventual damages and losses. Regarding the constitutionality of such measures, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in Vote No. 355-95 of 17:33 hours on January 18, 1995, has ratified the validity of the application of the attachment (embargo) and other precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), in order to secure eventual damages and losses, in order to adequately protect the rights of the plaintiff, the consuming public, and the competitors, among which preventive attachment (embargo preventivo) is included, alluding to Article 68 of the Central American Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Convenio Centroamericano para la Protección de la Propiedad Industrial). The only thing that the Tribunal must accept as a claim is that the attachment (embargo) must be limited to the assets that are absolutely indispensable to guarantee the right of the attaching party, consequently what was resolved is confirmed, in that regard, with the indicated caveat.

VI.- Grievances of the plaintiff.- The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the rejection of the request to order the cessation of the production, packaging, and sale of sunflower, lisianthus, and snapdragon seeds, to prevent the practice of unfair competition, in accordance with the rules governing that matter, in particular Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor). Although it is true, the cited norm indicated by the appellant refers to unfair competition and prohibited acts between different types of companies, which are considered unfair, it is not in that norm where the precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) in this matter are regulated. Said precautionary measures are expressly regulated in the Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (Ley de Procedimientos de Observancia de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual), No. 8039, of October 11, 2000, and, for the case under study, in the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales) No. 8631 of February 28, 2008, regulated by Executive Decree No. 35677-MAG, of November 19, 2009 (Published in La Gaceta No. 6 of January 11, 2010). As both legal regulations are identical, we transcribe the norms of interest from the Plant Breeders' Rights Law (Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales): "ARTICLE 34.- Adoption of precautionary measures Before initiating a process for infringement of a plant breeder's right, during its course, or in the execution phase, the competent judicial authority or the Office (Ofina), as appropriate, shall adopt the adequate and sufficient precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) to prevent the holder of the right from suffering a serious and difficult-to-repair injury, and to provisionally guarantee the effectiveness of the final act or judgment. A precautionary measure shall only be ordered when the person requesting it proves to be the holder of the right or its representative. The judicial authority or the Office shall require that whoever requests the measure provide sufficient guarantee, before it is ordered, to protect the alleged infringer and prevent abuses. ARTICLE 35.- Proportionality of the measure Any decision resolving the request for the adoption of precautionary measures must consider both the interests of third parties and the proportionality between the effects of the measure, as well as the damages and losses (daños y perjuicios) it may cause. ARTICLE 36.- Measures a) The following precautionary measures, among others, may be ordered: b) The immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement. c) The attachment (embargo) of the counterfeit or illegal varieties. d) The suspension of customs clearance for the varieties referred to in subparagraph b) above. e) The posting, by the alleged infringer, of a bond (fianza) or other sufficient guarantee." As can be observed, it is feasible to adopt precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) within summary processes where the protection of intellectual property rights is sought, or when acts of unfair competition occur. On this subject, the Tribunal has already had the opportunity to delve deeper in a recent resolution in which it was stated: "IV.- On the Gradual System of Typical Precautionary Measures (Medidas Cautelares Típicas) in matters of industrial property and unfair competition: The Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (LPODPI) and Articles 17 and 61 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense regulate four typical precautionary measures in this matter: the Prohibition to Innovate and/or Contract (Prohibición de Innovar y/o Contratar); the Seizure or Precautionary Attachment of Assets (Decomiso o Secuestro Precautorio de Bienes), the Suspension of Customs Clearance of Counterfeit or Illegal Goods, Materials or Means, and the Bond (Fianza). This by provision of article five, which indicates: “ARTICLE 5. Measures. The following precautionary measures, among others, may be ordered: a) The immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement. b) The attachment (embargo) of the counterfeit or illegal goods. c) The suspension of customs clearance of the goods, materials or means referred to in subparagraph b). d) The posting, by the alleged infringer, of a bond (fianza) or other sufficient guarantee.” Having seen the precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) requested and granted in this specific case, it is appropriate to analyze the nature, content, assumptions, and effects of the first two. In this type of measures, the aim is to satisfy, in an anticipatory, either total or partial, manner, the main claim of the plaintiff. They are called anticipatory or self-satisfying measures (medidas anticipativas or autosatisfactivas). It is for this reason that in these measures the danger of delay has a determining factor, to such a point that the legislator has foreseen this type of measures, as an exception to the correlation between the precautionary and main claim, since as the most recent Argentine procedural doctrine has sustained: “the appropriateness of self-satisfying measures (medidas autosatisfactivas) is contingent on the simultaneous concurrence of infrequent circumstances derived from the non-deferrable urgency in which the time factor and promptness appear as peremptory”. GALDOS (Jorge Mario). “El Contenido y el Continente de las Medidas Autosatisfactivas”, in: PEYRANO (Jorge Walter) and others. Medidas Autosatisfactivas, Buenos Aires, Rubinzal-Culzoni, 2002, p.61. These measures have been questioned because they mean an anticipated execution of the judgment through its decree. However, given that this type of measures occur in a typical form, as legislative authorization for urgent cases, to precede execution to knowledge, they require that the fumus boni iuris be fully demonstrated. Examples of these measures are found not only in intellectual property matters, but also in family matters, such as domestic violence measures and the provisional alimony pension, in civil matters, such as preventive attachment (embargo preventivo) in the monitory process and the suspension of new work in interdiction proceedings; and in criminal matters, a clear example is preventive detention. In all these cases, the legislator typifies that for certain specific situations, the judge can dictate typical precautionary measures (medidas cautelares típicas) allowing him, for the sake of protecting what is cautionary, to anticipatorily apply what could be deduced in an eventual favorable judgment.-" VII.- On the typical precautionary measure of Prohibition to Innovate and/or Contract (Prohibición de Innovar y/o Contratar): Contained in Article 5, subparagraph a) of the LPODPI, and normatively denominated as "immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement"; it is better known in comparative law as "prohibition to contract and/or innovate"; since “by virtue of it, one of the parties is ordered to refrain from executing one or more specific contracts regarding the disputed assets or those that have been subject to attachment”. DIEZ SOLIMINE (Omar Luis). Medidas Cautelares sobre Automotores, Buenos Aires, Astrea, 1999, p.153. In accordance with the provisions of Article 61 of Law 7472, this measure is appropriate when there is a clear indication that there is illegal, adulterated, expired merchandise, or merchandise that misleads consumers or endangers causing a serious and difficult-to-repair injury to the holder of the affected industrial property right. The prohibition to contract is a special form of the prohibition to innovate; this precautionary measure is applied with the administrative prevention or with the notification of the judicial resolution ordering this freeze, with the affected party having to “evacuate from the counter or stand” the assets that have been frozen and abstain from commercializing them; therefore, it constitutes and implies a true prohibition to contract. This precautionary measure, by itself, does not require the seizure of the assets (as that is the inherent content of the seizure (decomiso), as will be seen below) nor does it require that these assets be necessarily registrable or individualizable at first. Its justification lies in that the holder of a copyright, or a patent, trademark, or any of the industrial property rights “does not suffice with the mediate reaction of the legal system, but requires an immediate reaction so that they are not caused irreparable harm, which the legislator presumes by the fact of exploiting the patent or carrying out serious and effective preparatory acts for this purpose.” PEREZ DAUDI (Vicente). Las Medidas Cautelares en el Proceso de Propiedad Industrial, Barcelona, Bosch, 1996, p.186. This precautionary measure is of an unquestionably self-satisfying or anticipatory nature, since it seeks an end that can also be found within the main claims of the principal process, which is the cessation of the activity constituting an infringement of the regulations in this matter. But its purpose does not end there, as it fulfills a double function: on one hand, it avoids the risk of an impossibility of specific execution of the judgment, impaired by the conduct of unfair competition, and on the other hand, damage that is difficult to repair due to the difficulty of valuing and quantifying the damages, even if they are indemnifiable. In this type of typical precautionary measure (medida cautelar típica), the assumption of danger of delay constitutes any affectation of the industrial property right, also typified by the legislator, in Article 28 of the LPODPI, which denominates them as acts of unfair competition, which are: “In addition to the acts indicated in Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, No. 7472, of December 20, 1994, and its reforms, any act carried out in the exercise of a mercantile activity or on the occasion of it, contrary to honest uses and practices in commercial matters, is considered unfair. Likewise, the following, among others, constitute acts of unfair competition: a) Any conduct tending to mislead regarding the origin, nature, method of manufacture, suitability for use or consumption, quantity, or other characteristics of the products or services, to take advantage of the rights of a right holder protected by this Law. b) Any conduct tending to reproduce, without authorization from the owner, trademarks, distinctive signs, and any other protected element for the benefit of their legitimate owner, to take advantage, on a commercial scale, of the results of the effort and prestige of others. c) Any use of a sign whose registration is prohibited in accordance with subparagraphs k) and q) of Article 7 of the Law on Trademarks and Distinctive Signs (Ley de Marcas y Signos Distintivos), No. 7978, of January 6, 2000. d) The use, in commerce, of a sign whose registration is prohibited according to subparagraphs c), d), e), g) and h) of Article 8 of the Law on Trademarks and Distinctive Signs, No. 7978, of January 6, 2000.” Despite the infringements being typified as a factual assumption for the decree of this measure, we must consider the technicality in which each of these infringements may arise in the specific case. The casuistry is highly varied in a globalized world, where forms of commerce and advertising occur in an increasingly sophisticated manner to the rhythm of technological advances and much faster than the issuance of a precautionary measure, or worse yet, a final judgment. In these cases, this self-satisfying or anticipatory measure must comply with the other assumption: the appearance or plausibility of good right or fumus boni iuris with the accreditation of the applicant as the holder of the industrial property rights. Let us remember that in this type of measures, the precautionary claim is similar to that of the main one, there is no correlation due to this identity of claims, but this does not signify the unconstitutionality of these measures, as they are foreseen by the legislator, for the protection of urgent cases of irreparable damage, which, in the final analysis, is what the law seeks to avoid by proscribing actions with the status of infringements.-" (Agrarian Tribunal, No. 173F-11 of 15:10 hours on February 22, 2011). In said case, the tribunal analyzed the precautionary measures in a summary process for unfair competition, due to the use of distinctive signs, a conflict between two agro-industrial companies.

VIII.- Judgment of plausibility and assumptions.- The case now before us, unlike the one cited in the previous whereas clause (considerando), is rather referred to the apparent unfair competition between two plant breeding (fitomejoradoras) companies of seed varieties, particularly sunflower, a subject in which the plaintiff SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. requests the precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), considering that the defendants, Laura Flores Trejos and Yo Arita, former employees of the plaintiff, created a company called Florarte del Sol S.A., through which they are apparently producing and marketing sunflower seeds, of a variety identical to that of SAKATA CENTROAMERICANA S.A., even seeking to attract part of the clientele of the latter company. From the evidentiary elements provided to the process, this Tribunal concludes in a positive judgment of plausibility (juicio de verosimilitud), or favorable to the plaintiff, in relation to the appearance of good right, which is only that, the appearance, linking to an eventual ownership of the intellectual property right claimed, presumably recognized by the defendants in contractual clauses prior to this judicial process, also linked with apparent confidentiality clauses. See, to this effect, the official translation, of the document of April 29, 1999, points 2 and 3 (folio 9), in relation to the commitments assumed by the co-defendant, Yo Arita; as well as the document of September 21, denominated "Confidentiality and Property Rights Agreement (Acuerdo de Confidencialidad y de Derechos de Propiedad)", apparently recognized by Laura Flores Trejos in points 2 and 3 in favor of SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. (folio 23 and 24), as well as the note apparently sent by the company Sakata, on September 14, 2007 (folio 26) after her resignation reminding her of the clauses of said document. That appearance is linked, in addition, with other elements of judgment that make one presume the possible existence of unfair competition between competing companies in the improvement, production, and commercialization of sunflower varieties, which is evidenced in the copies of emails sent by Yo Arita, on October 18, 2007, where reference is made to his sunflower reproduction work at SAKATA, offering the Sunflower variety called #101 (folio 4), as well as the email of September 24, 2007, and September 15, 2007 (folios 5 and 6), presenting himself as the General Director of Florarte del Sol S.A. It is here where the founded fear is based, that the defendant company may provoke that unfair competition, which is related to the danger in delay -lamentably this precautionary measure has been delayed-, since there are also elements to determine that the defendant Florarte is offering the sunflower species '101' to clients (folios 1 and 2), which is apparently a variety offered and sold by Sakata (contrast, folios 19 to 21). Hence, there are the necessary elements of judgment to grant the precautionary measure that, as the appellant correctly points out, is a typical measure that finds its support in the norms of the special legislation related to the enforcement of intellectual property, consumer protection, and the protection of plant varieties. The summary route, as the appellant rightly argues, and in particular the precautionary protection (tutela cautelar), is the only procedural means to judicially compel the apparent unfair competitors to suspend the production and commercialization activity, given the founded fear that they may cause the plaintiff damage to the intellectual property of its company, which is impossible or difficult to repair. Without a doubt, in this case, there is a direct correspondence between the object of the process and the typical precautionary measure (medida cautelar típica) requested. On the other hand, it is important to make it clear, both to the plaintiff and to the defendant, that it will be in the judgment on the merits where it is defined to whom the ownership of the claimed intellectual property does or does not correspond, or whether unfair competition has existed or not. The precautionary measure has the purpose of anticipating, with an approximate value judgment, the eventual effects of a favorable judgment, without this necessarily meaning that the claim must be granted in the judgment. Precisely for that reason, the special legislation subjects the adoption of these measures to criteria of proportionality and reasonableness, and whoever requests the measure must provide sufficient guarantee, before it is effectively adopted, to protect the alleged infringer and thus prevent abuses (see articles 3 of the Law on Enforcement (Ley de Observancia), 34 and 35 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley de Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales). Finally, this Tribunal cannot refrain from ruling on the arguments of the defendant, in the sense that the "ownership of intellectual property" has not been demonstrated, and that being the assumption for adopting it, it could not be granted. However, it must be clearly stated that in this case, there are contractual elements and sufficient documents that allow us to issue a judgment of similarity favorable to the plaintiff company, as explained above. One thing is the formal and administrative registration of an intellectual property right, in relation to a genetic variety, and another is its express recognition between private subjects, even through apparent confidentiality clauses. Furthermore, it must be taken into consideration that the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley de Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales) was promulgated in our country only until February 28, 2008, and its regulation, published until January 2010, with the National Seed Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas) being in charge of regularizing said procedures to obtain the respective registration. However, due to the commitments assumed by Costa Rica, in Prior International Treaties (only by way of example, the Central American Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Convenio Centroamericano de protección de la propiedad industrial), the TRIPS Agreement (ADPIC), the UPOV Convention), as well as other special laws (Consumer, Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs (Marcas y otros Signos Distintivos), Enforcement of Intellectual Property (Observancia de la Propiedad Intelectual)), it is evident that norms already existed that granted special precautionary protection, as recognized by the same Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in Judgment No. 355-95 of 17:33 hours on January 18, 1995.- IX.- By virtue of the foregoing, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 of the Consumer Protection Law (Ley de Protección del Consumidor), 3, 4, and 5 of the Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (Ley de Procedimientos de Observancia de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual), as well as numerals 34, 35, and 36 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales), the resolution of the Agrarian Court of San José (Juzgado Agrario de San José) is partially revoked, in that it rejected the request for suspension of the acts being claimed against. Consequently, the lower court (a-quo) is ordered: To immediately issue an order for the suspension of the production, packaging, and sale of seeds of sunflower, lisianthus, and snapdragon species that the defendants Arita and Flores may be carrying out, whether in their personal names or through their company Florarte del Sol S.A., mainly regarding the production and commercialization of the species '101'.- In order to guarantee eventual damages and losses and protect the alleged infringer, a bond (caución) or counter-security is set in the amount of four million colones, which must be deposited into the account of the Agrarian Court, within the eight days following the finality of this resolution.” In spite of the foregoing, as stated above, a nullity would lead nowhere due to that lack of a ruling, given that the parties confine themselves to substantive aspects that will be resolved immediately.

**V.- Claims of the defendant party**.- The grievance of the defendant party is entirely improper, inasmuch as Article 33 of the Agricultural Jurisdiction Law clearly establishes that "*When it is deemed necessary to secure the results of the trial, the interested party may request an arraigo or a prejudgment attachment (embargo preventivo)... The judge must limit the attachment (embargo) to the goods that are indispensable to guarantee the right of the attaching party.*" In this case, the plaintiff party secured the attachment (embargo) by depositing 25% of the estimate (for eventual damages and losses (daños y perjuicios)). The defendant party argues that the measure was arbitrarily ordered, without the plaintiff presenting title or demonstrating its industrial property. However, that is not acceptable, because *the attachment (embargo) is a typical measure, which requires only the deposit to carry it out*, and precisely the guarantee serves to cover eventual damages and losses (daños y perjuicios). Regarding the constitutionality of such measures, the Constitutional Chamber, in Voto No. 355-95 of 17:33 hours on January 18, 1995, has ratified the validity of applying the attachment (embargo) and other precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), with the purpose of securing eventual damages and losses (daños y perjuicios), in order to adequately protect the rights of the plaintiff, the consuming public, and the competitors, which includes the prejudgment attachment (embargo preventivo), alluding to Article 68 of the Central American Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The only thing the Court must accept as a claim is that the attachment (embargo) must be limited to goods that are absolutely indispensable to guarantee the right of the attaching party; consequently, the ruling is confirmed on that point, with the indicated exception.

**VI.- Grievances of the plaintiff party.**- The plaintiff party is dissatisfied with the rejection of the request to *order the cessation of the production, packing, and sale of sunflower, lisianthus, and dragon seeds*, to prevent the practice of unfair competition, in accordance with the norms governing this matter, particularly Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. While it is true that the referred-to norm indicated by the appellant refers to unfair competition and prohibited acts among different types of companies that are considered unfair, it is not there that precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) are regulated in this matter. Said **precautionary measures (medidas cautelares)** are expressly regulated in the Law of Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, No. 8039, of October 11, 2000, and, for the case under study, in the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, No. 8631 of February 28, 2008, regulated by Executive Decree No. 35677-MAG, of November 19, 2009 (Published in La Gaceta No. 6 of January 11, 2010). Since both legal regulations are identical, we transcribe the relevant norms from the Plant Varieties Law: *"ARTICLE 34.- Adoption of precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) Before initiating a process for infringement of a plant variety right, during its course, or in the execution phase, the competent judicial authority or the Office, as appropriate, shall adopt the adequate and sufficient precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) to avoid a serious and difficult-to-repair injury to the right holder, and provisionally guarantee the effectiveness of the final act or judgment. A precautionary measure (medida cautelar) shall only be ordered when the person requesting it proves to be the right holder or their representative. The judicial authority or the Office shall require that the person requesting the measure provide sufficient guarantee before it is issued to protect the alleged infringer and prevent abuses. ARTICLE 35.- Proportionality of the measure Every decision resolving the request for the adoption of precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) must consider both the interests of third parties and the proportionality between the effects of the measure, as well as the damages and losses (daños y perjuicios) it may cause. ARTICLE 36.- Measures a) The following precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), among others, may be ordered: b) The immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement. c) The attachment (embargo) of counterfeit or illegal varieties. d) The suspension of customs clearance of the varieties referred to in subsection b) above. e) The posting, by the alleged infringer, of a bond or other sufficient guarantee.*" As can be observed, it is feasible to adopt precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) within summary processes where the aim is to protect intellectual property rights, or when acts of unfair competition occur. On this matter, the Court has already had the opportunity to delve deeper in a recent resolution where it was stated: *"**IV.- On the Gradual System of Typical Precautionary Measures (Medidas Cautelares Típicas) in matters of industrial property and unfair competition:** The Law of Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter LPODPI) and Articles 17 and 61 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense regulate four typical precautionary measures (medidas cautelares típicas) in this matter: Prohibition to Alter or Contract; the Confiscation or Precautionary Seizure of Goods, the Suspension of Customs Clearance of Counterfeit or Illegal Goods, Materials, or Means, and the Bond. This is by provision of the fifth article, which states: "ARTICLE 5. Measures. The following precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), among others, may be ordered: a) The immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement. b) The attachment (embargo) of counterfeit or illegal merchandise. c) The suspension of customs clearance of the merchandise, materials, or means referred to in subsection b). d) The posting, by the alleged infringer, of a bond or other sufficient guarantee." Having viewed the precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) requested and granted in this specific case, it is appropriate to analyze the nature, content, prerequisites, and effects of the first two. In this type of measures, the aim is to satisfy, in an anticipated manner, whether totally or partially, the substantive claim of the plaintiff. They are called anticipatory measures (medidas anticipativas) or self-satisfying measures (medidas autosatisfactivas). That is why in these measures the danger of delay has a determining factor, to such an extent that the legislator has provided for this type of measure as an exception to the correlativity between the precautionary claim (pretensión cautelar) and the principal claim, since, as the most recent Argentine procedural doctrine has maintained: "the appropriateness of self-satisfying measures (medidas autosatisfactivas) is subject to the simultaneous concurrence of infrequent circumstances derived from a non-deferrable urgency in which the time factor and promptness appear as peremptory." GALDOS (Jorge Mario). "The Content and the Container of Self-Satisfying Measures," in: PEYRANO (Jorge Walter) et al. *Self-Satisfying Measures (Medidas Autosatisfactivas)*, Buenos Aires, Rubinzal-Culzoni, 2002, p.61. These measures have been questioned because they entail an anticipated execution of the judgment through their decree. However, given that this type of measure is provided in a typical form, as authorization by the legislator for urgent cases, where execution precedes knowledge, they require that the fumus boni iuris be fully demonstrated. Examples of these measures are found not only in intellectual property matters but also in family matters, such as domestic violence measures and provisional alimony; in civil matters, such as prejudgment attachment (embargo preventivo) in the payment order process and the suspension of new construction via interdict; and in criminal matters, a clear example is pretrial detention. In all these cases, the legislator stipulates that for specific situations, the judge may issue typical precautionary measures (medidas cautelares típicas), permitting them, in order to protect what is to be secured, to apply anticipatorily what could be deduced in an eventual favorable judgment.- **VII.- On the typical precautionary measure (medida cautelar típica) of Prohibition to Alter and/or Contract:** Contained in Article 5, subsection a) of the LPODPI, and normatively called "immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement"; it is better known in comparative law as "prohibition to contract and/or alter"; since "by virtue of it, one of the parties is ordered to refrain from entering into one or more specific contracts regarding the goods in litigation or that have been subject to attachment (embargo)." DIEZ SOLIMINE (Omar Luis). Medidas Cautelares sobre Automotores, Buenos Aires, Astrea, 1999, p.153. In accordance with the provisions of Article 61 of Law 7472, this measure is appropriate when there is clear indication that there is illegal, adulterated, expired merchandise, or that which misleads consumers or endangers causing a serious and difficult-to-repair injury to the right holder of the affected industrial property right. The prohibition to contract is a special form of the prohibition to alter; this precautionary measure (medida cautelar) is applied with the administrative prevention or with the notification of the judicial resolution ordering this freeze, whereby the affected party must "remove from the counter or stand" the goods that have been frozen and refrain from commercializing them; therefore, it constitutes and implies a true prohibition to contract. This precautionary measure (medida cautelar), by itself, does not require the seizure of the goods (as that is the content proper to confiscation, as will be seen later on) nor does it require that these goods necessarily be registrable or individualizable at a first moment. Its justification lies in the fact that the holder of a copyright, or of a patent, trademark, or any of the industrial property rights "does not suffice with the mediate reaction of the legal system but requires an immediate reaction so that irreparable harm is not caused to them, which the legislator presumes by the fact of exploiting the patent or carrying out serious and effective preparatory acts for this purpose." PEREZ DAUDI (Vicente). *Las Medidas Cautelares en el Proceso de Propiedad Industrial*, Barcelona, Bosch, 1996, p.186. This precautionary measure (medida cautelar) is of a self-satisfying (autosatisfactiva) or anticipatory nature, undoubtedly, as it seeks an objective that can also be found within the main claims of the principal process, which is the cessation of the activity that constitutes an infringement of the regulations in this matter. But its purpose does not end there, as it fulfills a double function: on the one hand, it avoids the risk of an impossibility of specific execution of the judgment, impaired by the conduct of unfair competition, and on the other hand, it prevents damage that is difficult to repair due to the difficulty of valuing and quantifying the damages, even if they are compensable. In this type of typical precautionary measure (medida cautelar típica), *the prerequisite of danger of delay* constitutes any affectation of the industrial property right, also stipulated by the legislator, in Article 28 of the LPODPI, which designates them as acts of unfair competition, which are: "In addition to the acts indicated in Article 17 of the Law for the promotion of competition and effective consumer defense, No. 7472, of December 20, 1994, and its amendments, any act carried out in the exercise of a commercial activity or on the occasion thereof, contrary to honest uses and practices in commercial matters, is considered unfair. Likewise, the following constitute acts of unfair competition, among others: a) Any conduct tending to induce error regarding the origin, nature, method of manufacture, suitability for use or consumption, quantity, or other characteristics of the products or services, to take advantage of the rights of a right holder, protected by this Law. b) Any conduct tending to reproduce, without the owner's authorization, trademarks, distinctive signs, and any other protected element for the benefit of its legitimate owner, to take advantage, on a commercial scale, of the results of the effort and prestige of others. c) Any use of a sign whose registration is prohibited in accordance with subsections k) and q) of Article 7 of the Law of Trademarks and Distinctive Signs, No. 7978, of January 6, 2000. d) The use, in commerce, of a sign whose registration is prohibited according to subsections c), d), e), g), and h) of Article 8 of the Law of Trademarks and Distinctive Signs, No. 7978, of January 6, 2000." Despite the infringements being stipulated as a factual prerequisite for the decree of this measure, we must take into account the technicality with which each of these infringements may arise in the specific case. The casuistry is highly varied in a globalized world, where the forms of commerce and advertising occur in an increasingly sophisticated manner to the rhythm of technological advances and much faster than the issuance of a precautionary measure (medida cautelar), or worse still, a final judgment. In these cases, this self-satisfying (autosatisfactiva) or anticipatory measure must meet the other prerequisite: the *appearance or plausibility of a good right* or fumus boni iuris with the accreditation of the applicant as the holder of the industrial property rights. Let us recall that in this type of measure, the precautionary claim (pretensión cautelar) is similar to that of the main claim; there is no correlativity due to this identity of claims, but this does not signify the unconstitutionality of these measures, as they are provided for by the legislator, for the protection of urgent cases of irreparable damage, which, ultimately, is what the law seeks to avoid by proscribing actions having the quality of infringements.-" (Tribunal Agrario, No. 173F-11 of 15:10 hours on February 22, 2011) . In that case, the court analyzed precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) in a summary process of unfair competition, for the use of distinctive signs, a conflict between two agro-industrial companies.

**VIII.-** Judgment of plausibility and prerequisites.- The case now before us, unlike the one cited in the preceding recital, is rather referred to the apparent unfair competition between two plant-breeding companies (empresas fitomejoradoras) of seed varieties, particularly sunflower, a matter in which the plaintiff party SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. requests the precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), considering that the defendants, Laura Flores Trejos and Yo Arita, former employees of the plaintiff, created a company called Florarte del Sol S.A., *through which they are apparently producing and commercializing sunflower seeds of a variety identical to that of SAKATA CENTROAMERICANA S.A.*, seeking, even, to attract part of the clientele of the latter company. From the evidential elements contributed to the process, this Court concludes with a positive judgment of plausibility, favorable to the plaintiff, regarding the appearance of a good right, which is only that, the *appearance*, linked to an *eventual* ownership of the intellectual property right claimed, presumably recognized by the defendants in contractual clauses prior to this judicial process, also linked with *apparent confidentiality clauses*. See, in this respect, the official translation of the document dated April 29, 1999, points 2 and 3 (folio 9), in relation to the commitments assumed by the co-defendant, Yo Arita; as well as the document dated September 21, called "Confidentiality and Property Rights Agreement", *apparently* recognized by Laura Flores Trejos in points 2 and 3 in favor of SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. (folio 23 and 24), as well as the note *apparently* sent by the Sakata company on September 14, 2007 (folio 26) after her resignation, reminding her of the clauses of said document. That appearance is linked, moreover, with other elements of judgment that lead to *presume* the possible existence of unfair competition between competitor companies in the breeding, production, and commercialization of sunflower varieties, which is evidenced in the copies of emails sent by Yo Arita on October 18, 2007, where reference is made to his sunflower reproduction work at SAKATA, offering the sunflower variety called #101 (folio 4), as well as the email of September 24, 2007, and September 15, 2007 (folios 5 and 6), presenting himself as General Director of Florarte del Sol S.A. It is here that the founded fear is sustained that the defendant company causes that unfair competition, which is related to the danger in delay -regrettably this precautionary measure (medida cautelar) has been delayed-, since there are also elements to determine that the defendant Florarte is offering clients the species *sunflower '101' (folios 1 and 2)*, which is *apparently* a variety offered and sold by Sakata (compare folios 19 to 21). Hence, the necessary elements of judgment exist to grant the precautionary measure (medida cautelar) which, as the appellant party rightly indicates, is a *typical* measure that finds its support in the norms of the special legislation related to the enforcement of intellectual property, consumer protection, and the protection of plant varieties. The summary proceeding, as the appellant rightly argues, and particularly the precautionary protection (tutela cautelar), is the only procedural means for the judiciary to compel the *apparent* unfair competitors to suspend the production and commercialization activity, given the founded fear that they may cause the plaintiff damage to the intellectual property of their company, of impossible or difficult reparation. Without a doubt, in this case, there is a direct correspondence between the object of the process and the typical precautionary measure (medida cautelar típica) requested. Furthermore, it is important to make clear, both to the plaintiff party and to the defendant party, that it will be in the final judgment on the merits where it is defined to whom the ownership of the claimed intellectual property corresponds or not, or whether or not unfair competition has existed. The purpose of the precautionary measure (medida cautelar) is to anticipate, with an approximate judgment of value, the eventual effects of a favorable judgment, without this necessarily meaning that the claim must be upheld in the judgment. Precisely for this reason, the special legislation subjects the adoption of these measures to criteria of proportionality and reasonableness, and whoever requests the measure must provide sufficient guarantee before it is effectively adopted, to protect the alleged infringer and thus prevent abuses (see Articles 3 of the Enforcement Law, 34, and 35 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties). Finally, this Court cannot fail to rule on the arguments of the defendant party, to the effect that the "ownership of the intellectual property" has not been demonstrated, and that being the prerequisite for adopting it, it could not be granted. However, it must be clearly stated that in this case, there are contractual elements and sufficient documents that allow issuing a judgment of similarity favorable to the plaintiff company, as explained above. One thing is the formal, administrative registration of an intellectual property right in relation to a genetic variety, and another is its express recognition between private subjects, including through apparent confidentiality clauses. Furthermore, it must be taken into consideration that the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties was promulgated in our country only on February 28, 2008, and its regulations, published only in January 2010, with the Oficina Nacional de Semillas being the entity responsible for regularizing said procedures to obtain the respective registration. However, due to the commitments assumed by Costa Rica in earlier international treaties (just by way of example, the Central American Convention for the protection of industrial property, TRIPS, the UPOV Convention), as well as other special laws (Consumer, Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Enforcement of Intellectual Property), it is evident that norms already existed that granted special precautionary protection (protección cautelar), as the Constitutional Chamber itself recognized in Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber, in Voto No. 355-95 of 17:33 hours on January 18, 1995.- **IX.-** By virtue of the foregoing, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 of the Consumer Protection Law, 3, 4, and 5 of the Law of Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, as well as numerals 34, 35, and 36 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Varieties, the resolution of the Juzgado Agrario de San José is partially revoked, insofar as it rejected the request for suspension of the acts against which the claim is made. Consequently, the lower court is ordered: Immediately issue an order for the suspension of the production, packing, and sale of seeds of sunflower, *lisianthus, and dragon* species that the defendants Arita and Flores might be carrying out, whether personally or through their company Florarte del Sol S.A., mainly regarding the production and commercialization of the '101' species.- In order to guarantee eventual damages and losses (daños y perjuicios) and protect the alleged infringer, a bond or counter-security (caución o contracautela) is set in the amount of four million colones, which must be deposited into the account of the Juzgado Agrario, within eight days following the finality of this resolution.

**II.- Appeal of the plaintiff party**.- The plaintiff party is dissatisfied with the rejection of the request to *order the cessation of the production, packing, and sale of sunflower, lisianthus, and dragon seeds*, recalling that the matter was presented as a civil process, in order to protect the intellectual and industrial property, and prevent the practice of unfair competition, in accordance with the norms governing that matter. Although it was determined that it should proceed via summary proceedings, it must be based on Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, as these are acts contrary to the norms of correctness and good commercial practices, for which reason it requests a cessation of production in the agricultural court as a precautionary measure (medida precautoria), which is neither reckless nor disproportionate, but rather is a necessary measure for the effective protection of SAKATA's rights, seeking to avoid greater damage. The summary proceeding, it argues, is the only procedural means for the judiciary to compel unfair competitors to suspend the illicit activity, to the detriment of the intellectual property of their company. The claim, it argues, has the appearance of a good right, and there is a danger of the damages caused by the exploitation of their intellectual property by third parties outside the company. The requested precautionary measure (medida cautelar), it argues, is not atypical in intellectual property matters.

The defendants, she points out, produce using intellectual property that is not their own, since Flores and Arita's production, through their company, is based on knowledge acquired when both worked for SAKATA, meaning there is a direct correspondence between the object of the proceeding and the requested measure. They therefore request the attachment (embargo) of the defendants' productive assets and the suspension of all productive activity (see folios 204-208).

**III.- Appeal by the defendants**.- The attorney-in-fact for Laura Flores Trejos (see folio 197), Yo Arita, and Florarte del Sol S.A. appealed, arguing that the evidence offered by the plaintiff does not demonstrate ownership of one or more industrial secrets allegedly infringed by his clients, nor any deposit before the Industrial Property Registry. The measures, he argues, were ordered arbitrarily because they do not have a close relationship with the effectiveness of a favorable judgment. The plaintiff, he argues, does not prove that his clients' activity may pose a danger to Sakata, since it does not demonstrate ownership of the industrial creation, nor has it specified the alleged damages suffered. Therefore, in his opinion, the prerequisites for ordering the prejudgment attachment (embargo preventivo) of assets are not met. He therefore requests that the ruling be revoked and the requested precautionary measure be rejected, as it exceeds the Judge's powers (see folios 213-215).

**IV- Procedural considerations.-** Firstly, it must be noted that the appealed ruling, while it is true that it granted the typical precautionary measure requested by the plaintiff—prejudgment attachment (embargo preventivo)—in the operative part of the "Por tanto," it did not expressly state what was being granted, which could be considered a nullifying defect, given that Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), in relation to Article 155 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), require specific pronouncements in the "por tanto." Despite the foregoing, since neither party invoked the defect, it is not appropriate for this Tribunal to declare nullity for nullity's sake at this procedural stage. Especially since the parties are contesting substantive and not procedural aspects. Consequently. Secondly, the plaintiff-as-appellant seeks to reargue the nature (agrarian or civil) of this summary proceeding for unfair competition. A matter that is amply precluded, since the First Chamber of Cassation (Sala Primera de Casación), with sound judgment, attending to the specialty of the matter, clearly indicated that this case should be heard by the specialized Agrarian Jurisdiction, a criterion it has already reiterated in other similar cases. It is not true that the Law for the Promotion of Competition (Ley de Promoción de la Competencia) or the Intellectual Property Law grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Civil Jurisdiction to hear these matters, especially when they involve the production and protection of genetic varieties and their commercialization. Thirdly, this Tribunal draws the attention of the First Instance Judge because he makes a doctrinal citation, indicating only the author's name, without citing the source or the book used, but does not relate said citation to the specific case, nor does he delineate the nature of the precautionary measures he is ruling on. Much less does he refer to legal norms, factual criteria, or equity (as required by Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law), with respect to the other precautionary measures. That is, he does not analyze any element contributed to the proceeding, and he simply rejects them arguing that their adoption would be anticipating judgment. Despite the foregoing, as stated above, a nullity would lead nowhere due to this deficiency in the ruling, given that the parties are limiting themselves to substantive aspects which we will proceed to resolve immediately.

**V.- Claims of the defendants**.- The grievance of the defendants is entirely unfounded, since Article 33 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law clearly establishes that "*When deemed necessary to secure the results of the trial, the interested party may request arraigo or prejudgment attachment (embargo preventivo)...The judge must limit the attachment to the assets that are indispensable to guarantee the right of the attaching party.*" In this case, the plaintiff secured the attachment (embargo) by depositing 25% of the estimate (for eventual damages—daños y perjuicios). The defendants argue that the measure was issued arbitrarily, without the plaintiff presenting title or demonstrating its industrial property. However, this is unacceptable, because *attachment (embargo) is a typical measure that requires only the deposit to be carried out*, and precisely the guarantee serves to cover eventual damages (daños y perjuicios). Regarding the constitutionality of such measures, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in Voto No. 355-95 of 17:33 hours on January 18, 1995, has ratified the validity of the application of attachment (embargo) and other precautionary measures, with the purpose of securing eventual damages (daños y perjuicios), in order to adequately protect the rights of the plaintiff, the consuming public, and competitors, among which is included the prejudgment attachment (embargo preventivo), alluding to Article 68 of the Central American Agreement for the Protection of Industrial Property. The only thing the Tribunal must accept as a claim is that the attachment (embargo) must be limited to the assets that are absolutely indispensable to guarantee the right of the attaching party (embargante); consequently, the ruling is confirmed on that point, with the indicated caveat.

**VI.- Grievances of the plaintiff**.- The plaintiff disagrees with the rejection of the request to *order the cessation of the production, packaging, and sale of sunflower, lisianthus, and dragon seeds*, to prevent the practice of unfair competition, in accordance with the rules governing this matter, particularly Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. While it is true that the norm indicated by the appellant refers to unfair competition and prohibited acts between different types of companies that are considered unfair, that is not where precautionary measures in this matter are regulated. Said **precautionary measures** are expressly regulated in the Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, No. 8039, of October 11, 2000, and, for the case under study, in the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights (Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales) No. 8631 of February 28, 2008, regulated by Decreto Ejecutivo No. 35677-MAG, of November 19, 2009 (Published in La Gaceta No. 6 of January 11, 2010). As both legal regulations are identical, we transcribe the norms of interest from the Plant Breeders' Rights Law: **"ARTÍCULO 34.- Adoption of precautionary measures** *Before initiating a proceeding for infringement of a plant breeder's right, during its course, or in the execution phase, the competent judicial authority or the Office, as appropriate, shall adopt the adequate and sufficient precautionary measures to prevent serious and difficult-to-repair harm to the right holder, and to provisionally guarantee the effectiveness of the final act or judgment. A precautionary measure shall only be ordered when the party requesting it proves to be the right holder or their representative. The judicial authority or the Office shall require the party requesting the measure to provide sufficient guarantee, before it is issued, to protect the alleged infringer and prevent abuses.* **ARTÍCULO 35.- Proportionality of the measure** *Any decision resolving the request for adoption of precautionary measures shall consider both the interests of third parties and the proportionality between the effects of the measure, as well as the damages (daños y perjuicios) that it may cause.* **ARTÍCULO 36.- Measures a)** *The following precautionary measures, among others, may be ordered:* **b)** *The immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement.* **c)** *The attachment (embargo) of the falsified or illegal varieties.* **d)** *The suspension of customs clearance of the varieties referred to in subparagraph b) above.* **e)** *The posting, by the alleged infringer, of a bond or other sufficient guarantee.*" As can be observed, it is feasible to adopt precautionary measures within summary proceedings where the protection of intellectual property rights is sought, or when acts of unfair competition occur. On this subject, the Tribunal has already had the opportunity to delve deeper in a recent ruling in which it stated: "* **IV.- On the Gradual System of Typical Precautionary Measures in Matters of Industrial Property and Unfair Competition:** *The Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter LPODPI) and Articles 17 and 61 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense regulate four typical precautionary measures in this matter: the Prohibition to Innovate and/or Contract (Prohibición de Innovar y/o Contratar); the Seizure or Precautionary Confiscation (Decomiso) of Assets (Secuestro Precautorio de Bienes), the Suspension of Customs Clearance of Falsified or Illegal Goods, Materials, or Means, and the Bond (Fianza). This is by provision of Article Five, which states: "ARTÍCULO 5. Measures. The following precautionary measures, among others, may be ordered: a) The immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement. b) The attachment (embargo) of falsified or illegal goods. c) The suspension of customs clearance of the goods, materials, or means referred to in subparagraph b). d) The posting, by the alleged infringer, of a bond (fianza) or other sufficient guarantee." Having seen the precautionary measures requested and granted in this specific case, it is appropriate to analyze the nature, content, prerequisites, and effects of the first two. These types of measures seek to satisfy, in advance, either totally or partially, the substantive claim of the plaintiff. They are called anticipatory or self-satisfying measures (medidas anticipativas o autosatisfactivas). That is why in these measures the danger of delay (peligro de demora) has a determining factor, to such an extent that the legislator has provided for these types of measures as an exception to the correlativity between the precautionary and principal claim, since, as the most recent Argentine procedural doctrine has held: "the admissibility of self-satisfying measures (medidas autosatisfactivas) is subject to the simultaneous concurrence of infrequent circumstances derived from an unpostponable urgency in which the time factor and promptness appear as peremptory." GALDOS (Jorge Mario). "El Contenido y el Continente de las Medidas Autosatisfactivas", in: PEYRANO (Jorge Walter) and others. *Medidas Autosatisfactivas*, Buenos Aires, Rubinzal-Culzoni, 2002, p.61. These measures have been questioned because they represent an early execution of the judgment through its decree. However, given that these types of measures are provided for in a typical manner, as authorization from the legislator for urgent cases, to precede execution to knowledge, they require that the fumus boni iuris be fully demonstrated. We have examples of these measures not only in intellectual property matters, but also in family matters, such as domestic violence measures and provisional alimony; in civil matters, such as the prejudgment attachment (embargo preventivo) in payment order proceedings and the suspension of new construction in interdictal proceedings; and in criminal matters, a clear example is pretrial detention. In all these cases, the legislator typifies that for certain specific situations, the judge may issue typical precautionary measures allowing him/her, in the interest of protecting what is to be secured, to apply in an anticipatory manner what could be deduced in an eventual favorable judgment.-* **VII.- On the Typical Precautionary Measure of Prohibition to Innovate and/or Contract (Prohibición de Innovar y/o Contratar):** *Contained in Article 5, subparagraph a) of the LPODPI, and normatively called "immediate cessation of the acts constituting the infringement"; it is better known in comparative law as "prohibition to contract and/or innovate (prohibición de contratar y/o innovar)"; since "by virtue of it, one of the parties is ordered to refrain from entering into one or more specific contracts regarding the litigious assets or those that have been subject to attachment (embargo)." DIEZ SOLIMINE (Omar Luis). Medidas Cautelares sobre Automotores, Buenos Aires, Astrea, 1999, p.153. In accordance with the provisions of Article 61 of Law 7472, this measure is appropriate when there is clear indication that there is illegal, adulterated, expired merchandise, or merchandise that leads consumers to be misled or poses a danger of causing serious and difficult-to-repair harm to the affected holder of the industrial property right. The prohibition to contract is a special form of the prohibition to innovate (prohibición de innovar); this precautionary measure is applied with the administrative prevention or with the notification of the judicial ruling ordering this freezing, with the affected party having to "remove from the counter or stand" the goods that have been frozen and refrain from marketing them; therefore, it constitutes and implies a true prohibition to contract. This precautionary measure, by itself, does not require the seizure of the goods (since that is the specific content of confiscation (decomiso), as will be seen later) nor does it require that these goods necessarily be registrable or identifiable at a first moment. Its justification lies in the fact that the holder of a copyright, or a patent, trademark, or any of the industrial property rights "is not satisfied with the mediate reaction of the legal system, but needs an immediate reaction so as not to suffer irreparable harm, which the legislator presumes due to the exploitation of the patent or the carrying out of serious and effective preparatory acts for this purpose." PEREZ DAUDI (Vicente). *Las Medidas Cautelares en el Proceso de Propiedad Industrial*, Barcelona, Bosch, 1996, p.186. This precautionary measure is undoubtedly of a self-satisfying or anticipatory nature, since it seeks an end that can also be found within the principal claims of the main proceeding, which is the cessation of the activity constituting an infringement of the regulations in this matter. But its purpose does not stop there, for it fulfills a dual function: on one hand, it avoids the risk of an impossibility of specific enforcement of the judgment, impaired by the conduct of unfair competition, and on the other hand, it avoids difficult-to-repair harm due to the difficulty of assessing and quantifying damages, even if they are compensable. In this type of typical precautionary measure,* **the prerequisite of danger of delay (peligro de demora)** *constitutes any affectation of the industrial property right, also typified by the legislator in Article 28 of the LPODPI, which denominates them as acts of unfair competition, which are: "In addition to the acts indicated in Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, No. 7472, of December 20, 1994, and its amendments, any act carried out in the exercise of a commercial activity or on occasion thereof, contrary to honest practices and customs in commercial matters, is considered unfair. Likewise, the following, among others, constitute acts of unfair competition:* **a)** *Any conduct tending to mislead regarding the origin, nature, manufacturing method, suitability for use or consumption, quantity, or other characteristics of the products or services, to take advantage of the rights of a right holder protected by this Law.* **b)** *Any conduct tending to reproduce, without the owner's authorization, trademarks, distinctive signs, and any other protected element for the benefit of its legitimate owner, to take advantage, on a commercial scale, of the results of others' efforts and prestige.* **c)** *Any use of a sign whose registration is prohibited pursuant to subparagraphs k) and q) of Article 7 of the Law on Trademarks and Distinctive Signs, No. 7978, of January 6, 2000.* **d)** *The use, in commerce, of a sign whose registration is prohibited pursuant to subparagraphs c), d), e), g), and h) of Article 8 of the Law on Trademarks and Distinctive Signs, No. 7978, of January 6, 2000." Despite the infringements being typified as a factual prerequisite for the decree of this measure, we must take into account the technicality with which each of these infringements may arise in the specific case. The case law is highly varied in a globalized world, where forms of commerce and advertising occur in an increasingly sophisticated manner, keeping pace with technological advances and much faster than the issuance of a precautionary measure, or worse yet, a final judgment. In these cases, this self-satisfying or anticipatory measure must meet the other prerequisite: the* **appearance or plausibility of good right (apariencia o verosimilitud de buen derecho)** *or fumus boni iuris with the accreditation of the applicant as the holder of the industrial property rights. Let us remember that in this type of measures, the precautionary claim is similar to that of the principal claim; there is no correlativity due to this identity of claims, but this does not signify the unconstitutionality of these measures, since they are provided for by the legislator for the protection of urgent cases of irreparable harm, which, in the final analysis, is what the law seeks to avoid by proscribing actions with the quality of infringements.-" *(Tribunal Agrario, No. 173F-11 of 15:10 hours on February 22, 2011). In that case, the tribunal analyzed precautionary measures in a summary proceeding for unfair competition, due to the use of distinctive signs, a conflict between two agro-industrial companies.

**VIII.-** Plausibility Judgment and Prerequisites.- The case now before us, unlike the one cited in the previous recital, refers rather to apparent **unfair competition** between two **plant-breeding companies (empresas fitomejoradoras)** of seed varieties, particularly sunflower, a subject in which the plaintiff SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. requests precautionary measures, considering that the defendants, Laura Flores Trejos and Yo Arita, former employees of the plaintiff, created a company called Florarte del Sol S.A., *through which they are apparently producing and marketing sunflower seeds, of a variety identical to that of SAKATA* CENTROAMERICANA S.A., even seeking to attract part of the clientele of the latter company. From the evidentiary elements contributed to the proceeding, this Tribunal concludes in a positive plausibility judgment (juicio de verosimilitud), favorable to the plaintiff, regarding the appearance of good right (apariencia de buen derecho), which is just that, the *appearance*, linking to an *eventual* ownership of the intellectual property right claimed, presumably acknowledged by the defendants in contractual clauses prior to this judicial proceeding, also linked to *apparent confidentiality clauses (cláusulas de confidencialidad)*. See, to that effect, the official translation of the document of April 29, 1999, points 2 and 3 (folio 9), in relation to the commitments assumed by co-defendant Yo Arita; as well as the document of September 21, called "Confidentiality and Property Rights Agreement," *apparently* acknowledged by Laura Flores Trejos in points 2 and 3 in favor of SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. (folios 23 and 24), as well as the note *apparently* sent by the company Sakata on September 14, 2007 (folio 26) after her resignation, reminding her of the clauses of said document. That appearance is additionally linked to other evidentiary elements that lead one to *presume* the possible existence of unfair competition between competing companies in the breeding, production, and commercialization of sunflower varieties, which is evidenced in the copies of emails sent by Yo Arita on October 18, 2007, where reference is made to his sunflower reproduction work at SAKATA, offering the sunflower variety called #101 (folio 4), as well as the emails of September 24, 2007, and September 15, 2007 (folios 5 and 6), presenting himself as the General Director of Florarte del Sol S.A. It is here that the well-founded fear that the defendant company will provoke such unfair competition is sustained, which is related to the danger in the delay (peligro en la demora)—unfortunately, this precautionary measure has been delayed—since there are also elements to determine that the defendant Florarte is offering clients the species *sunflower '101' (folios 1 and 2),* which is *apparently* a variety offered and sold by Sakata (compare folios 19 to 21). Hence, there exist the necessary evidentiary elements to grant the precautionary measure which, as the appellant rightly points out, is a *typical* measure that finds its support in the norms of special legislation related to the enforcement of intellectual property, consumer protection, and the protection of plant varieties. The summary proceeding, as the appellant rightly argues, and particularly precautionary protection, is the only procedural means to judicially compel the *apparent* unfair competitors to suspend the production and commercialization activity, given the well-founded fear that they may cause the plaintiff harm to the intellectual property of its company, of impossible or difficult reparation. Without a doubt, in this case there is a direct correspondence between the object of the proceeding and the typical precautionary measure requested. On the other hand, it is important to make clear, both to the plaintiff and to the defendants, that it will be in the judgment on the merits where it is defined to whom the claimed intellectual property right belongs or not, or whether unfair competition existed or not. The purpose of the precautionary measure is to anticipate, with an approximate value judgment, the eventual effects of a favorable judgment, without this necessarily meaning that the claim must be upheld in the judgment. Precisely for that reason, special legislation subjects the adoption of these measures to criteria of proportionality and reasonableness, and whoever requests the measure must provide sufficient guarantee, before it is effectively adopted, to protect the alleged infringer and thus avoid abuses (see Articles 3 of the Enforcement Law, 34 and 35 of the Law for the Protection of Plant Breeders' Rights). Finally, this Tribunal cannot fail to rule on the defendants' arguments that the "ownership of the intellectual property" has not been demonstrated, and that this being the prerequisite for adopting it, it could not be granted. However, it must be clearly indicated that in this case, there are contractual elements and sufficient documents that allow a plausibility judgment (juicio de similitud) favorable to the plaintiff company to be issued, as explained above. Formal and administrative registration of an intellectual property right regarding a genetic variety is one thing, and its express acknowledgment between private parties, even through apparent confidentiality clauses (cláusulas de confidencialidad), is another.

Furthermore, it must be taken into consideration that the Law on the Protection of Plant Varieties (Ley de Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales) was enacted in our country only on February 28, 2008, and its regulations were published only in January 2010, with the National Seed Office (Oficina Nacional de Semillas) being responsible for regularizing the relevant procedures to obtain the corresponding registration. However, due to the commitments assumed by Costa Rica in prior international treaties (solely by way of example, the Central American Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the TRIPS Agreement, the UPOV Convention), as well as other special laws (Consumer Law, Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Law on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights), it is evident that rules already existed that granted special precautionary protection, as recognized by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in its judgment, Vote No. 355-95 at 5:33 p.m. on January 18, 1995.

**IX.-** Pursuant to the foregoing, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Consumer Protection Law, Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Law on Procedures for Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, as well as numerals 34, 35, and 36 of the Law on the Protection of Plant Varieties, the ruling of the Agrarian Court of San José is partially overturned, insofar as it rejected the request for suspension of the acts complained of. Consequently, the lower court (a-quo) is ordered: To immediately issue an order to cease the production, packaging, and sale of seeds of sunflower, *lisianthus*, and *dragon* species that the defendants Arita and Flores may be carrying out, whether in their personal names or through their company Florarte del Sol S.A., primarily regarding the production and marketing of the species '101'. In order to guarantee potential damages and protect the alleged infringer, a bond or counter-security (caución o contracautela) is set in the amount of four million colones, which must be deposited into the account of the Agrarian Court within eight days following the finality of this ruling.

**Precautionary Measures in the Industrial Property Process**, Barcelona, Bosch, 1996, p.186. This precautionary measure is of an autosatisfactive or anticipatory nature, undoubtedly, as it seeks an objective that may also be found within the main claims of the principal proceeding, which is the cessation of the activity that constitutes an infringement of the regulations in this matter. But its purpose does not end there, as it fulfills a dual function: on one hand, it avoids the risk of an impossibility of specific enforcement of the judgment, undermined by the conduct of unfair competition (competencia desleal), and on the other hand, it prevents harm that is difficult to repair due to the difficulty of valuing and quantifying the damages, even if they are compensable. In this type of typical precautionary measure, the requirement of danger in delay (peligro de demora) constitutes any affectation of the industrial property right, also typified by the legislator in Article 28 of the LPODPI, which designates them as acts of unfair competition (actos de competencia desleal), which are: "In addition to the acts indicated in Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, N° 7472, of December 20, 1994, and its reforms, any act carried out in the exercise of a commercial activity or on the occasion thereof, contrary to honest uses and practices in commercial matters, is considered unfair. Likewise, the following, among others, constitute acts of unfair competition (actos de competencia desleal): a) Any conduct tending to induce error regarding the origin, nature, method of manufacture, suitability for use or consumption, quantity, or other characteristics of the products or services, to take advantage of the rights of a right holder protected by this Law. b) Any conduct tending to reproduce, without the owner's authorization, trademarks, distinctive signs, and any other protected element for the benefit of its legitimate owner, to take advantage, on a commercial scale, of the results of another's effort and prestige. c) Any use of a sign whose registration is prohibited in accordance with subparagraphs k) and q) of Article 7 of the Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, N° 7978, of January 6, 2000. d) The use, in commerce, of a sign whose registration is prohibited according to subparagraphs c), d), e), g), and h) of Article 8 of the Law on Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, N° 7978, of January 6, 2000." Despite the infringements being typified, as a factual prerequisite for the decree of this measure, we must take into account the technicality in which each of these infringements may arise in a specific case. The case law is extremely varied in a globalized world, where the forms of commerce and advertising occur in an increasingly sophisticated manner to the rhythm of technological advances and much faster than the issuance of a precautionary measure, or worse yet, a final judgment. In these cases, this autosatisfactive or anticipatory measure must meet the other prerequisite: the appearance or plausibility of a good right (apariencia o verosimilitud de buen derecho) or fumus boni iuris through the accreditation of the applicant as the holder of the industrial property rights. Let us remember that in this type of measure, the precautionary claim is similar to that of the main claim; there is no correlation due to this identity of claims, but this does not signify the unconstitutionality of these measures, as they are provided for by the legislator for the protection of urgent cases of irreparable harm, which, ultimately, is what the law seeks to avoid by proscribing actions with the quality of infringements.-" (Tribunal Agrario, No. 173F-11 of 15:10 hours on February 22, 2011). In said case, the court analyzed the precautionary measures in a summary proceeding for unfair competition (competencia desleal), due to the use of distinctive signs, a conflict between two agro-industrial companies.

**VIII.-** Judgment of plausibility (verosimilitud) and prerequisites.- The case now before us, unlike the one cited in the preceding whereas clause, refers rather to apparent unfair competition (competencia desleal) between two plant-breeding companies (empresas fitomejoradoras) of seed varieties, particularly sunflower, a subject in which the plaintiff SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. requests precautionary measures, considering that the defendants, Laura Flores Trejos and Yo Arita, former employees of the plaintiff, created a company named Florarte del Sol S.A., through which they are apparently producing and commercializing sunflower seeds of a variety identical to that of SAKATA CENTROAMERICANA S.A., even seeking to attract part of the latter company's clientele. From the evidentiary elements provided to the process, this Court concludes in a positive judgment of plausibility (verosimilitud), or favorable to the plaintiff, regarding the appearance of a good right (apariencia de buen derecho), which is only that, the appearance, linking to an eventual ownership of the intellectual property right claimed, presumably acknowledged by the defendants in contractual clauses prior to this judicial process, also linked to apparent confidentiality clauses (cláusulas de confidencialidad). See, to this effect, the official translation of the document of April 29, 1999, points 2 and 3 (folio 9), in relation to the commitments assumed by the co-defendant, Yo Arita; as well as the document of September 21, called "Agreement of Confidentiality and Property Rights", apparently acknowledged by Laura Flores Trejos in points 2 and 3 in favor of SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. (folios 23 and 24), as well as the note apparently sent by the company Sakata on September 14, 2007 (folio 26) after her resignation, reminding her of the clauses of said document. This appearance is linked, furthermore, with other evidentiary elements that lead one to presume the possible existence of unfair competition (competencia desleal) between competing companies in the improvement, production, and commercialization of sunflower varieties, which is evident in the copies of emails sent by Yo Arita on October 18, 2007, where reference is made to his work in sunflower reproduction at SAKATA, offering the sunflower variety called #101 (folio 4), as well as the emails of September 24, 2007, and September 15, 2007 (folios 5 and 6), presenting himself as General Director of Florarte del Sol S.A. It is here that the well-founded fear is sustained, that the defendant company will cause this unfair competition (competencia desleal), which is related to the danger in delay (peligro en la demora) -unfortunately, this precautionary measure has been delayed-, because there are also elements to determine that the defendant Florarte is offering clients the species sunflower '101' (folios 1 and 2), which is apparently a variety offered and sold by Sakata (contrast folios 19 to 21). Hence, there are the necessary evidentiary elements to grant the precautionary measure which, as the appellant party correctly indicates, is a typical measure that finds its support in the rules of special legislation related to the enforcement of intellectual property, consumer protection, and the protection of plant varieties. The summary proceeding (vía sumaria), as the appellant correctly argues, and in particular the precautionary protection, is the only procedural means to judicially compel the apparent unfair competitors to suspend the production and commercialization activity, given the well-founded fear that they may cause the plaintiff harm to the intellectual property of their company, which is impossible or difficult to repair. Without a doubt, in this case, there is a direct correspondence between the object of the process and the typical precautionary measure requested. On the other hand, it is important to make clear, both to the plaintiff and the defendant, that it will be in the final judgment on the merits where it will be defined to whom the claimed intellectual property ownership corresponds or not, or whether unfair competition (competencia desleal) has existed or not. The purpose of the precautionary measure is to anticipate, with an approximate value judgment, the eventual effects of an estimatory judgment, without this necessarily meaning that the claim must be upheld in the judgment. Precisely for this reason, the special legislation subjects the adoption of these measures to criteria of proportionality, reasonableness, and whoever requests the measure must provide sufficient guarantee, before it is effectively adopted, to protect the alleged infringer and thus avoid abuses (see Articles 3 of the Law on Enforcement, and 34 and 35 of the Law on the Protection of Plant Varieties). Finally, this Court cannot refrain from ruling on the arguments of the defendant, to the effect that the "ownership of the intellectual property" has not been demonstrated, and that being the prerequisite for adopting it, it could not be granted. However, it must be clearly indicated that in this case, there are contractual elements and sufficient documents that allow issuing a judgment of similarity (similitud) favorable to the plaintiff company, as explained above. One thing is the formal, administrative registration of an intellectual property right in relation to a genetic variety, and another is its express acknowledgment between private subjects, even through apparent confidentiality clauses (cláusulas de confidencialidad). Furthermore, it must be taken into consideration that the Law on the Protection of Plant Varieties was promulgated in our country only until February 28, 2008, and its regulation published until January 2010, with the National Seed Office being responsible for regularizing said procedures to obtain the respective registration. However, due to the commitments assumed by Costa Rica in prior International Treaties (just as an example, the Central American Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the TRIPS, the UPOV Convention), as well as other special laws (Consumer, Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Enforcement of Intellectual Property), it is evident that standards already existed granting special precautionary protection, as recognized by the Constitutional Chamber itself in Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber, in Voto No. 355-95 of 17:33 hours on January 18, 1995.- **IX.-** By virtue of the foregoing, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 of the Consumer Protection Law, 3, 4, and 5 of the Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, as well as numerals 34, 35, and 36 of the Law on the Protection of Plant Varieties, the resolution of the Juzgado Agrario de San José is revoked, partially, in that it rejected the request for suspension of the acts complained of. Consequently, the lower court is ordered: To immediately issue an order of suspension of the production, packaging, and sale of seeds of sunflower species, lisianthus and dragon that the defendants Arita and Flores may be carrying out, either personally or through their company Florarte del Sol S.A., mainly regarding the production and commercialization of the '101' species.- In order to guarantee eventual damages and protect the alleged infringer, a bond (causión) or counter-security (contracautela) is set in the amount of four million colones, which must be deposited into the account of the Juzgado Agrario, within eight days following the finality of this resolution.

**II.- Appeal of the plaintiff.-** The plaintiff disagrees with the rejection of the request to order the cessation of production, packaging, and sale of sunflower, lisianthyus and dragon seeds, recalling that the matter was presented as a civil process, in order to protect intellectual and industrial property, and avoid the practice of unfair competition (competencia desleal), in accordance with the norms governing this matter. Although it was determined that it should proceed via summary proceeding (vía sumaria), it must be based on Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, as these are acts contrary to the norms of correctness and good commercial practices, for which it requests a cessation of production in agrarian court as a precautionary measure, which is neither reckless nor excessive, but rather a necessary measure for the effective protection of SAKATA's rights, seeking to avoid greater harm. The summary proceeding (vía sumaria), it argues, is the only procedural means to judicially compel unfair competitors to suspend the illicit activity, in harm of the intellectual property of its company. The claim, it argues, has the appearance of a good right (apariencia de buen derecho), and there is a danger of the damages caused by the exploitation of its intellectual property by third parties outside the company. The precautionary measure requested, it argues, is not atypical in intellectual property matters. The defendants produce, it points out, using intellectual property that is not their property, as the production of Flores and Arita, through their company, is based on knowledge acquired when both worked for SAKATA, for which there is a direct correspondence between the object of the process and the measure requested. Therefore, they request the seizure (embargo) of the productive assets of the defendants and the suspension of all productive activity (see folios 204-208).

**III.- Appeal of the defendant.-** The legal representative of Laura Flores Trejos (see folio 197), Yo Arita and Florarte del Sol S.A. appealed, arguing that from the evidence offered by the plaintiff, no ownership of one or several industrial secrets allegedly infringed by their represented parties is denoted, nor any deposit before the Industrial Property Registry. The measures, it argues, were ordered arbitrarily because they do not present a close relationship with the effectiveness of an estimatory judgment. The plaintiff, it argues, does not prove that the activity of their represented parties may represent a danger to Sakata, as the latter does not demonstrate ownership of the industrial creation, nor has it specified the alleged damages suffered. Therefore, in its judgment, the prerequisites for ordering the preventive seizure (embargo preventivo) of assets are not met. For this reason, it requests that the resolution be revoked and the precautionary measure requested be rejected, as it exceeds the powers of the Judge (see folios 213-215).

**IV- Considerations of a procedural nature.-** Firstly, it must be indicated that the appealed resolution, although it is true that it granted the typical precautionary measure of preventive seizure (embargo preventivo) requested by the plaintiff, in the operative part of the Por Tanto, it did not expressly indicate what it is granting, which could be considered a defect of nullity, given that Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, in relation to Article 155 of the Código Procesal Civil, requires concrete pronouncements in the 'por tanto'. Despite the foregoing, as none of the parties invoked the defect, it is not appropriate for this Court to declare nullity for nullity's sake at this stage of the proceeding. Especially since the parties contest substantive aspects and not procedural ones. Consequently. Secondly, the plaintiff-appellant seeks to re-discuss the nature (agrarian or civil) of this summary proceeding for unfair competition (competencia desleal). A matter that is amply precluded, as the Sala Primera de Casación, with good judgment, attending to the specialty of the matter, clearly indicated that this matter should be under the jurisdiction of the specialized Agrarian Jurisdiction, a criterion it has already reiterated in other similar cases. It is not true that the Law for the Promotion of Competition or the Intellectual Property Law grant exclusive competence to the Civil Jurisdiction to hear these matters, especially when it concerns the production and protection of genetic varieties and their commercialization. Thirdly, this Court draws the attention of the First Instance Judge, in that they make a doctrinal citation, indicating only the author's name, without outlining the source or the book used, but do not relate the referred citation to the specific case, nor delimit the nature of the precautionary measures being resolved. Much less do they refer to the legal norms, the factual criteria, or equity (as required by Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), with respect to the remaining precautionary measures. That is, they do not analyze any element provided to the process, and simply reject them arguing that their adoption would be to anticipate judgment. Despite the foregoing, as set forth above, a nullity would lead nowhere, due to that deficiency in what was resolved, given that the parties limit themselves to substantive aspects that will be resolved immediately.

**V.- Claims of the defendant.-** The defendant's grievance is entirely improper, as Article 33 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria clearly establishes that "When deemed necessary to secure the results of the trial, the interested party may request judicial bond (arraigo) or preventive seizure (embargo preventivo)...The judge must limit the seizure to the assets that are indispensable to guarantee the right of the attaching party." In this case, the plaintiff guaranteed the seizure (embargo), depositing 25% of the estimate (for eventual damages). The defendant argues that the measure was dictated arbitrarily, without the plaintiff presenting title or demonstrating its industrial property. However, this is not admissible, because the seizure (embargo) is a typical measure, which requires only the deposit to execute it, and precisely the guarantee serves to cover eventual damages. On the constitutionality of said measures, the Constitutional Chamber, in Voto No. 355-95 of 17:33 hours on January 18, 1995, has ratified the validity of the application of seizure (embargo) and other precautionary measures, in order to secure eventual damages, and in order to adequately protect the rights of the plaintiff, the consuming public, and competitors, among which preventive seizure (embargo preventivo) is included, alluding to Article 68 of the Central American Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The only thing the Court must accept as a claim is that the seizure (embargo) must be limited to the assets that are absolutely indispensable to guarantee the right of the attaching party; consequently, what was resolved on that point is confirmed, with the indicated exception.

**VI.- Grievances of the plaintiff.-** The plaintiff disagrees with the rejection of the request to order the cessation of production, packaging, and sale of sunflower, lisianthyus and dragon seeds, to avoid the practice of unfair competition (competencia desleal), in accordance with the norms governing this matter, particularly Article 17 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer. Although it is true, the referred norm indicated by the appellant refers to unfair competition (competencia desleal) and the acts prohibited between different types of companies, which are considered unfair, it is not in that norm where precautionary measures in this matter are regulated. Said precautionary measures are expressly regulated in the Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, No. 8039, of October 11, 2000, and, for the case under study, in the Law on the Protection of Plant Varieties No. 8631 of February 28, 2008, regulated by Decreto Ejecutivo No. 35677-MAG, of November 19, 2009 (Published in La Gaceta No. 6 of January 11, 2010). As both legal regulations are identical, we transcribe the rules of interest from the Law on Plant Varieties: "ARTICLE 34.- Adoption of precautionary measures Before initiating a process for infringement of a plant variety right, during its course, or in the execution phase, the competent judicial authority or the Office, as appropriate, shall adopt adequate and sufficient precautionary measures to avoid a serious and difficult-to-repair injury to the right holder, and guarantee, provisionally, the effectiveness of the final act or judgment. A precautionary measure shall only be ordered when the person requesting it accredits being the right holder or their representative. The judicial authority or the Office shall require that whoever requests the measure provide sufficient guarantee, before it is issued, to protect the alleged infringer and prevent abuses. ARTICLE 35.- Proportionality of the measure Any decision resolving the request for adoption of precautionary measures must consider both the interests of third parties and the proportionality between the effects of the measure, as well as the damages it may cause. ARTICLE 36.- Measures a) The following precautionary measures, among others, may be ordered: b) The immediate cessation of the acts that constitute the infringement. c) The seizure (embargo) of the falsified or illegal varieties. d) The suspension of customs clearance of the varieties referred to in subparagraph b) above. e) The posting of a bond or other sufficient guarantee by the alleged infringer." As can be observed, it is feasible to adopt precautionary measures within summary proceedings where it is intended to protect intellectual property rights, or when acts of unfair competition (competencia desleal) occur. On this topic, the Court has already had the opportunity to delve deeper in a recent resolution in which it was indicated: "IV.- On the Gradual System of Typical Precautionary Measures in matters of industrial property and unfair competition (competencia desleal): The Law on Procedures for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter LPODPI) and Articles 17 and 61 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer regulate four typical precautionary measures in this matter: the Prohibition to Innovate and/or Contract; the Seizure or Precautionary Sequestration of Assets, the Suspension of Customs Clearance of Falsified or Illegal Merchandise, Materials, or Means, and the Bond. This is by provision of Article five, which indicates: "ARTICLE 5. Measures. The following precautionary measures, among others, may be ordered: a) The immediate cessation of the acts that constitute the infringement. b) The seizure (embargo) of the falsified or illegal merchandise. c) The suspension of customs clearance of the merchandise, materials, or means referred to in subparagraph b). d) The posting of a bond or other sufficient guarantee by the alleged infringer." Having seen the precautionary measures requested and granted in this specific case, it is convenient to analyze the nature, content, prerequisites, and effects of the first two. In this type of measure, the aim is to satisfy, in advance, whether totally or partially, the substantive claim of the plaintiff. They are called anticipatory or autosatisfactive measures.

It is for this reason that in these measures the danger of delay (peligro de demora) has a determining factor, to such an extent that the legislator has provided for this type of measures, as an exception to the correlativity between the cautionary and principal claims, since, as the most recent Argentine procedural doctrine has maintained: “the granting of self-satisfying measures (medidas autosatisfactivas) is contingent upon the simultaneous concurrence of infrequent circumstances derived from unpostponable urgency in which the time factor and promptness appear as peremptory.” GALDOS (Jorge Mario). “El Contenido y el Continente de las Medidas Autosatisfactivas”, in: PEYRANO (Jorge Walter) and others. Medidas Autosatisfactivas, Buenos Aires, Rubinzal-Culzoni, 2002, p.61. These measures have been questioned because they signify an early execution of the judgment through their decree. However, given that this type of measures occur in a typical form, as legislative authorization for urgent cases, of the execution preceding the knowledge, they require that the fumus boni iuris be fully demonstrated. We have examples of these measures not only in intellectual property matters, but also in family matters, such as domestic violence measures and provisional alimony, in civil matters, such as the preventive seizure in the payment order procedure (proceso monitorio) and the suspension of new construction in interdictal proceedings; and in criminal matters, a clear example is preventive detention. In all these cases, the legislator typifies that for certain specific situations, the judge may decree typical precautionary measures, allowing him, in order to protect the cautionary interest, to anticipatorily apply what could be deduced in an eventual favorable judgment.- **VII.- On the typical precautionary measure of Prohibition of Innovation and/or Contracting (Prohibición de Innovar y/o Contratar):** Contained in Article 5, subsection a) of the LPODPI, and normatively called "immediate cessation of the acts that constitute the infringement"; it is better known in comparative law as "prohibition of contracting and/or innovating (prohibición de contratar y/o innovar)"; since "by virtue of it, one of the parties is ordered to refrain from entering into one or more specific contracts regarding the property in litigation or that has been seized." DIEZ SOLIMINE (Omar Luis). Medidas Cautelares sobre Automotores, Buenos Aires, Astrea, 1999, p.153. In accordance with the provisions of Article 61 of Ley 7472, this measure is appropriate when there is a clear indication that there is illegal, adulterated, expired merchandise, or merchandise that misleads consumers or endangers the holder of the affected industrial property right by causing serious and difficult-to-repair injury. The prohibition of contracting is a special form of the prohibition of innovating; this precautionary measure is applied with the administrative prevention order or with the notification of the judicial resolution ordering this freezing, with the affected party having to "remove from the counter or stand" the goods that have been frozen and refrain from commercializing them; therefore, it constitutes and implies a true prohibition of contracting. This precautionary measure, by itself, does not require the seizure of the goods (as that is the proper content of confiscation (decomiso), as will be seen later) nor does it require that these goods necessarily be registrable or individualizable at the first moment. Its justification lies in the fact that the holder of a copyright, or a patent, trademark, or any of the industrial property rights "is not satisfied with the mediate reaction of the legal system, but rather requires an immediate reaction so that irreparable harm is not caused to him, which the legislator presumes by the fact of exploiting the patent or carrying out serious and effective preparatory acts for this purpose." PEREZ DAUDI (Vicente). Las Medidas Cautelares en el Proceso de Propiedad Industrial, Barcelona, Bosch, 1996, p.186. This precautionary measure is of a self-satisfying (autosatisfactiva) or anticipatory (anticipativa) nature, undoubtedly, since it seeks an objective that can also be found within the principal claims of the main proceeding, which is the cessation of the activity that constitutes an infringement of the regulations in this matter. But its purpose does not stop there, for it fulfills a double function: on the one hand, it avoids the risk of an impossibility of specific execution of the judgment, impaired by the conduct of unfair competition, and on the other hand, damage that is difficult to repair due to the difficulty of valuing and quantifying the damages, even if they are compensable. In this type of typical precautionary measure, **the prerequisite of danger of delay (peligro de demora)** constitutes any affectation of the industrial property right, also typified by the legislator, in Article 28 of the LPODPI, which designates them as acts of unfair competition, which are: "In addition to the acts indicated in Article 17 of the Ley de promoción de la competencia y defensa efectiva del consumidor, N° 7472, of December 20, 1994, and its amendments, any act performed in the exercise of a commercial activity or on the occasion thereof, contrary to honest commercial uses and practices, is considered unfair. Likewise, the following, among others, constitute acts of unfair competition: **a)** Any conduct tending to induce error regarding the origin, nature, method of manufacture, suitability for use or consumption, quantity, or other characteristics of the products or services, to take advantage of the rights of a right holder, protected by this Law. **b)** Any conduct tending to reproduce, without the owner's authorization, trademarks, distinctive signs, and any other protected element for the benefit of its legitimate owner, to take advantage, on a commercial scale, of the results of the effort and prestige of others. **c)** Any use of a sign whose registration is prohibited according to subparagraphs k) and q) of Article 7 of the Ley de marcas y signos distintivos, N° 7978, of January 6, 2000. **d)** The use, in commerce, of a sign whose registration is prohibited according to subparagraphs c), d), e), g) and h) of Article 8 of the Ley de marcas y signos distintivos, N° 7978, of January 6, 2000." Despite the infringements being typified as the factual prerequisite for the decree of this measure, we must take into account the technicality with which each of these infringements may arise in the specific case. The casuistry is highly varied in a globalized world, where the forms of commerce and advertising occur in an increasingly sophisticated manner at the pace of technological advances and much faster than the issuance of a precautionary measure, or even worse, of a final judgment. In these cases, this self-satisfying (autosatisfactiva) or anticipatory (anticipativa) measure must fulfill the other prerequisite: the **appearance or plausibility of good right (apariencia o verosimilitud de buen derecho)** or fumus boni iuris with the applicant's accreditation as the holder of the industrial property rights. Let us remember that in this type of measures, the cautionary claim is similar to that of the principal claim; there is no correlativity due to this identity of claims, but this does not signify the unconstitutionality of these measures, as they are provided for by the legislator for the protection of urgent cases of irreparable damage, which, ultimately, is what the law seeks to avoid by proscribing actions with the status of infringements." (Agrarian Tribunal (Tribunal Agrario), No. 173F-11 of 3:10 p.m. on February 22, 2011). In that case, the tribunal analyzed the precautionary measures in a summary proceeding for unfair competition, for the use of distinctive signs, a conflict between two agro-industrial companies.

**VIII.-** Judgment of plausibility (verosimilitud) and prerequisites.- The case now before us, unlike the one cited in the preceding recital (considerando), is rather related to apparent unfair competition between two plant breeding companies (empresas fitomejoradoras) of seed varieties, particularly sunflower, a matter in which the plaintiff SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. requests the precautionary measures, considering that the defendants, Laura Flores Trejos and Yo Arita, former employees of the plaintiff, created a company called Florarte del Sol S.A., **through which they are apparently producing and commercializing sunflower seeds, of a variety identical to that of SAKATA** CENTROAMERICANA S.A., even seeking to attract part of the clientele of the latter company. From the evidentiary elements provided to the process, this Tribunal concludes with a positive judgment of plausibility (juicio de verosimilitud), or favorable to the plaintiff, in relation to the appearance of good right, which is only that, the **appearance**, linked to an **eventual** ownership of the intellectual property right claimed, presumably recognized by the defendants in contractual clauses prior to this judicial process, also linked to **apparent confidentiality clauses**. See, for this purpose, the official translation of the document of April 29, 1999, points 2 and 3 (folio 9), in relation to the commitments assumed by the co-defendant, Yo Arita; as well as the document of September 21, named "Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement", **apparently** recognized by Laura Flores Trejos in points 2 and 3 in favor of SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. (folios 23 and 24), as well as the note **apparently** sent by the company Sakata, on September 14, 2007 (folio 26) after her resignation, reminding her of the clauses of said document. That appearance is linked, furthermore, to other elements of judgment that lead one to **presume** the possible existence of unfair competition between competing companies in the improvement, production, and commercialization of sunflower varieties, which is evidenced in the copies of emails sent by Yo Arita, on October 18, 2007, where reference is made to his work of Sunflower reproduction at SAKATA, offering the Sunflower variety called #101 (folio 4), as well as the email of September 24, 2007, and of September 15, 2007 (folios 5 and 6), presenting himself as General Director of Florarte del Sol S.A. It is here that the well-founded fear that the defendant company will provoke that unfair competition is sustained, which is related to the danger in the delay (peligro en la demora) —unfortunately this precautionary measure has been delayed—, as there are also elements to determine that the defendant Florarte is offering clients the species **sunflower '101' (folios 1 and 2)**, which is **apparently** a variety offered and sold by Sakata (contrast folios 19 to 21). Hence, there are the necessary elements of judgment to grant the precautionary measure that, as the appellant correctly indicates, is a **typical** measure that finds its support in the norms of the special legislation related to the enforcement of intellectual property, consumer protection, and the protection of plant varieties. The summary proceeding, as the appellant rightly argues, and in particular the cautionary protection, is the only procedural means for the **apparent** unfair competitors to be judicially compelled to suspend the production and commercialization activity, given the well-founded fear that they may cause the plaintiff damage to the intellectual property of her company, of impossible or difficult reparation. Without a doubt, in this case, there is a direct correspondence between the object of the proceeding and the typical precautionary measure requested. On the other hand, it is important to make it clear, both to the plaintiff and to the defendant, that it will be in the final judgment on the merits where it will be defined to whom the ownership of the claimed intellectual property belongs or not, or whether there has been unfair competition or not. The precautionary measure's purpose is to anticipate, with an approximate value judgment, the eventual effects of a favorable judgment, without this necessarily meaning that the claim must be upheld in the judgment. Precisely for that reason, the special legislation subjects the adoption of these measures to criteria of proportionality and reasonableness, and whoever requests the measure must provide sufficient security (garantía), before it is effectively adopted, to protect the alleged infringer and thus avoid abuses (see Articles 3 of the Ley de Observancia, 34 and 35 of the Ley de Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales). Finally, this Tribunal cannot refrain from addressing the arguments of the defendant, to the effect that the "ownership of intellectual property" has not been demonstrated, and that being the prerequisite for adopting it, it could not be granted. However, it must be stated clearly that in this case there are contractual elements and sufficient documents that allow the issuance of a judgment of similarity (juicio de similitud) favorable to the plaintiff company, as explained above. The formal, administrative registration of an intellectual property right, in relation to a genetic variety, is one thing, and its express recognition between private parties, even through apparent confidentiality clauses, is another. Furthermore, it must be considered that the Ley de Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales was promulgated in our country only on February 28, 2008, and its regulation published in January 2010, with the Oficina Nacional de Semillas being responsible for regularizing said procedures to obtain the respective registration. However, due to the commitments assumed by Costa Rica in prior International Treaties (merely by way of example, the Convenio Centroamericano de protección de la propiedad industrial, ADPIC, the Convenio UPOV), as well as other special laws (Consumer, Trademarks and Other Distinctive Signs, Enforcement of Intellectual Property), it is evident that norms already existed that granted special cautionary protection, as recognized by the Sala Constitucional itself in Judgment of the Sala Constitucional, Voto No. 355-95 of 5:33 p.m. on January 18, 1995.- **IX.-** By virtue of the foregoing, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 of the Ley de Protección del Consumidor, 3, 4, and 5 of the Ley de Procedimientos de Observancia de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual, as well as numerals 34, 35, and 36 of the Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales, the resolution of the Agrarian Court of San José (Juzgado Agrario de San José) is revoked, partially, in that it rejected the request for suspension of the acts complained against. Consequently, the lower court (a-quo) is ordered: To immediately issue a suspension order for the production, packaging, and sale of seeds of sunflower species, **lisianthus and dragon**, that the defendants Arita and Flores may be carrying out, either in their personal names or through their company Florarte del Sol S.A., mainly regarding the production and commercialization of the '101' species.- In order to guarantee eventual damages and losses and to protect the alleged infringer, a bond or counter-security (caución o contracautela) is set in the amount of four million colones, which must be deposited into the account of the Agrarian Court (Juzgado Agrario), within eight days following the finality of this resolution.”

“II.- Recurso de la parte actora.- La parte actora se muestra disconforme con el rechazo de la solicitud de ordenar el cese de la producción, empaque y venta de semillas de girasol, lisianthyus y dragón, recordando que el asunto fue presentado como un proceso civil, a fin de proteger la propiedad intelectual e industrial, y evitar la práctica de competencia desleal, conforme a las normas que rigen esa materia. Si bien se determinó que debía seguir en vía sumaria, debe basarse en el artículo 17 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del consumidor, pues se trata de actos contrarios a las normas de corrección y buenos usos mercantiles, por lo que solicita un cese de producción en sede agraria como medida precautoria, lo cual no es temerario ni desmesurado, sino que más bien es una medida necesaria para la tutela efectiva de los derechos de SAKATA, que busca evitar un daño mayor. La vía sumaria, aduce, es el único medio procesal para que judicialmente se obligue a los competidores desleales a suspender la actividad ilícita, en daño de la propiedad intelectual de su empresa. La demanda, aduce, tiene apariencia de buen derecho, y existe un peligro de los daños provocados, por la explotación de su propiedad intelectual por terceros ajenos a al empresa. La medida cautelar solicitada, aduce, no es atípica en materia de propiedad intelectual. Los demandados producen, señala, usando propiedad intelectual que no es de su propiedad, pues la producción de Flores y Arita, a través de su compañía se basa en conocimientos adquiridos cuando ambos trabajaban para SAKATA, por lo que existe una correspondencia directa entre el objeto del proceso y la medida solicitada. Por ello solicitan el embargo de los bienes productivos de los demandados y la suspensión de toda actividad productiva (ver folios 204-208).

III.- Recurso de la parte demandada.- El apoderado de Laura Flores Trejos (ver folio 197) Yo Arita y Florarte del Sol S.A. apeló aduciendo que de la prueba ofrecida por la parte actora, no se denota titularidad de uno o varios secretos industriales presuntamente infringidos por sus representados, o depósito alguno ante el Registro de Propiedad industrial. Las medidas, aduce, fueron ordenadas de manera arbitraria porque no presentan estrecha relación con la eficacia del fallo estimatorio. La actora, aduce no comprueba que la actividad de su representados pueda manifestar peligro para Sakata, pues esta no demuestra titularidad de la creación industrial, y tampoco ha especificado los supuestos daños sufridos. Por ello, a su juicio, no se cumplen los presupuestos para ordenar el embargo preventivo de bienes. Por ello solicita se revoque la resolución y se rechace la medida cautelar solicitada, al exceder los poderes del Juez (ver folios 213-215) IV- Consideraciones de carácter procesal.- En primer lugar, debe indicarse que la resolución recurrida, sin bien es cierto acogió la medida cautelar típica solicitada por la parte actora, de embargo preventivo, en la parte dispositiva del Por Tanto, no indicó expresamente qué es lo que acoge, lo cual podría considerarse un vicio de nulidad, dado que el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, en relación al 155 del Código Procesal Civil, exigen en el por tanto pronunciamientos concretos. Pese a lo anterior, como ninguna de las partes invocó el vicio, no es procedente que este Tribunal declare a estas alturas procesales la nulidad por la nulidad misma. Máxime que las partes combaten aspectos de fondo y no de forma. En consecuencia. En segundo lugar, la parte actora, recurrente, pretende volver a discutir la naturaleza (agraria o civil) de este proceso sumario de competencia desleal. Asunto que está sobradamente precluído, pues la Sala Primera de Casación, con buen tino, atendiendo a la especialidad de la materia, indicó con claridad, que este asunto debía ser del conocimiento de la Jurisdicción Agraria especializada, criterio que ha reiterado ya en otros casos similares. No es cierto que la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia o la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual le otorguen una competencia exclusiva a la Jurisdicción Civil para conocer de estos asuntos, máxime cuando se trata de la producción y protección de variedades genéticas y su comercialización. En tercer lugar, le llama la atención a este Tribunal, al Juez de Primera instancia, por cuanto hace una cita doctrinal, indicando solamente el nombre del autor, sin reseñar la fuente o el libro empleado, pero no relaciona la referida cita con el caso concreto, ni deslinda la naturaleza de las medidas cautelares que está resolviendo. Mucho menos hace referencia a las normas jurídicas, a los criterios de hecho, o de equidad (como lo exige el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), respecto de las restantes medidas cautelares. Es decir, no analiza ningún elemento de los aportados al proceso, y simplemente las rechaza argumentando que su adopción sería anticipar criterio. Pese a lo anterior, como se expuso más arriba, a nada conduciría una nulidad, por esa carencia de lo resuelto, dado que las partes se limitan a aspectos de fondo que se procederá a resolver de inmediato.

V.- Reclamos de la parte demandada.- El agravio de la parte demandada es totalmente improcedente, por cuanto el artículo 33 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria establece claramente que "Cuando se juzgue necesario para asegurar los resultados del juicio, la parte interesada podrá solicitar el arraigo o el embargo preventivo...El juez debe limitar el embargo a los bienes que sean indispensables para garantizar el derecho del embargante." En este caso, la parte actora garantizó el embargo, depositando el 25%, de la estimación (para eventuales daños y perjuicios). Aduce la parte demandada que se dictó la medida arbitrariamente, sin que la actora presentara título o demostrara su propiedad industrial. Sin embargo, ello no es de recibo, porque el embargo es una medida típica, que requiere únicamente del depósito para practicarlo, y justamente la garantía sirve para cubrir eventuales daños y perjuicios. Sobre la constitucionalidad de dichas medidas, la Sala Constitucional, en Voto No. 355-95 de las17:33 horas del 18 de enero de 1995, a ratificado la validez de la aplicación del embargo y otras medidas cautelares, con el fin de asegurar los eventuales daños y perjuicios, con el fin de proteger adecuadamente los derechos del actor, del público consumidor y de los competidores, entre los cuales se incluye el embargo preventivo, haciendo alución al artículo 68 del Convenio Centroamericano para la Protección de la Propiedad Industrial. Lo único que debe acoger el Tribunal como reclamo, es que el embargo debe limitarse a los bienes que sean absolutamente indispensables para garantizar el derecho del embargante, en consecuencia se confirma lo resuelto, en ese extremo, con la salvedad indicada.

VI.- Agravios de la parte actora.- La parte actora se muestra disconforme con el rechazo de la solicitud de ordenar el cese de la producción, empaque y venta de semillas de girasol, lisianthyus y dragón, para evitar la práctica de competencia desleal, conforme a las normas que rigen esa materia, en particular el artículo 17 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del consumidor. Si bien es cierto, la referida norma indicada por el recurrente hace referencia a la competencia desleal y los actos prohibidos entre distintos tipos de empresas, que se consideran como desleales, no es en ella donde se regulan las medidas cautelares en esta materia. Dichas medidas cautelares, se regulan expresamente en la Ley de Procedimientos de Observancia de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual, No. 8039, del 11 de octubre del 2000, y, para el caso en estudio, en la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales NO. 8631 del 28 de febrero del 2008, reglamentada por Decreto Ejecutivo No. 35677-MAG, del 19 de noviembre del año 2009 (Publicado en La Gaceta No. 6 del 11 de enero 2010). Como ambas regulaciones legales son idénticas, transcribimos la Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales las normas de interés:"ARTÍCULO 34.- Adopción de medidas cautelares Antes de iniciar un proceso por infracción de un derecho de obtención vegetal, durante su transcurso o en la fase de ejecución, la autoridad judicial competente o la Ofina, según corresponda, adoptará las medidas cautelares adecuadas y suficientes para evitarle una lesión grave y de difícil reparación al titular del derecho, y garantizar, provisionalmente, la efectividad del acto final o de la sentencia. Una medida cautelar solo se ordenará cuando quien la pida acredite ser el titular del derecho o su representante. La autoridad judicial o la Ofinase requerirá que quien solicite la medida otorgue garantía suficiente, antes de que esta se dicte para proteger al supuesto infractor y evitar abusos. ARTÍCULO 35.- Proporcionalidad de la medida Toda decisión que resuelva la solicitud de adopción de medidas cautelares, deberá considerar tanto los intereses de terceros como la proporcionalidad entre los efectos de la medida, así como los daños y perjuicios que esta pueda provocar. ARTÍCULO 36.- Medidas a) Podrán ordenarse, entre otras, las siguientes medidas cautelares: b) El cese inmediato de los actos que constituyen la infracción. c) El embargo de las variedades falsificadas o ilegales. d) La suspensión del despacho aduanero de las variedades referidas en el inciso b) anterior. e) La caución, por el presunto infractor, de una fianza o de otra garantía suficiente." Como puede observarse, es factible adoptar medidas cautelares dentro de procesos sumarios en donde se pretende tutelar derechos de propiedad intelectual, o cuando se produzcan actos de competencia desleal. Sobre este tema, ya el Tribunal ha tenido la oportunidad de profundizar en una resolución reciente en la cual se indicó: "IV.- Sobre el Sistema Gradual de Medidas Cautelares Típicas en materia de propiedad industrial y competencia desleal: La Ley de Procedimientos de Observancia de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual (en adelante LPODPI) y los artículos 17 y 61 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor regulan cuatro medidas cautelares típicas en esta materia: la Prohibición de Innovar y/o Contratar; el Decomiso o Secuestro Precautorio de Bienes, la Suspensión del Despacho Aduanero de Mercancías, Materiales o Medios Falsificados o ilegales y la Fianza. Ello por disposición del artículo quinto, el cual indica: “ARTÍCULO 5. Medidas. Podrán ordenarse, entre otras, las siguientes medidas cautelares: a) El cese inmediato de los actos que constituyen la infracción. b) El embargo de las mercancías falsificadas o ilegales. c) La suspensión del despacho aduanero de las mercancías, materiales o medios referidos en el inciso b). d) La caución, por el presunto infractor, de una fianza u otra garantía suficiente.” Vistas las medidas cautelares solicitadas y acogidas en este caso en específico, conviene analizar la naturaleza, contenido, presupuestos y efectos de las dos primeras. En este tipo de medidas se pretende satisfacer, en forma anticipada, sea total o parcialmente, la pretensión de fondo del actor. Se denominan medidas anticipativas o autosatisfactivas. Es por ello que en estas medidas el peligro de demora tiene un factor determinante, a tal punto que el legislador ha previsto este tipo de medidas, como excepción a la correlatividad entre la pretensión cautelar y principal, ya que como ha sostenido la más reciente doctrina procesal argentina: “la procedencia de las medidas autosatisfactivas está supeditada a la concurrencia simultánea de circunstancias infrecuentes derivadas de la urgencia impostergable en la que el factor tiempo y la prontitud aparecen como perentorios”. GALDOS (Jorge Mario). “El Contenido y el Continente de las Medidas Autosatisfactivas”, en: PEYRANO (Jorge Walter) y otros. Medidas Autosatisfactivas, Buenos Aires, Rubinzal-Culzoni, 2002, p.61. Se ha cuestionado estas medidas pues significa una ejecución anticipada de la sentencia a través de su decreto. Sin embargo, dado que este tipo de medidas se dan en forma típica, como autorización del legislador para casos urgentes, de anteceder la ejecución al conocimiento, por lo que requieren que el fumus boni iuris sea demostrado plenamente. Ejemplo de estas medidas las tenemos no solo en materia de propiedad intelectual, sino también en materia de familia, como lo son las medidas de violencia doméstica y la pensión provisional de alimentos, en civil, como el embargo preventivo en el proceso monitorio y la suspensión de obra nueva en vía interdictal; y en penal un claro ejemplo es la prisión preventiva. En todos estos casos, el legislador tipifica que para ciertas situaciones concretas, el juez puede dictar medidas cautelares típicas permitiéndole, en aras de proteger lo cautelado, aplicar anticipativa lo que podría deducirse en una eventual sentencia estimatoria.- VII.- Sobre la medida cautelar típica de Prohibición de Innovar y/o Contratar: Contenida en el artículo 5 inciso a) de la LPODPI, y denominada normativamente como "cese inmediato de los actos que constituyen la infracción"; es mejor conocida en el derecho comparado como "prohibición de contratar y/o innovar"; ya que “en virtud de ella se ordena a una de las partes que se abstenga de celebrar uno o más contratos determinados respecto de los bienes litigiosos o que han sido objeto de embargo”. DIEZ SOLIMINE (Omar Luis). Medidas Cautelares sobre Automotores, Buenos Aires, Astrea, 1999, p.153. De conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 61 de la Ley 7472, procede esta medida cuando hay indicio claro de que hay mercadería ilegal, adulterada, vencida, o que lleve a engaño a los consumidores o ponga en peligro de ocasionar una lesión grave y de difícil reparación al titular del derecho de propiedad industrial afectado. La prohibición de contratar es una forma especial de la prohibición de innovar, esta medida cautelar se aplica con la prevención administrativa o con la notificación de la resolución judicial que ordena este congelamiento, teniendo el afectado que “evacuar del mostrador o stand” los bienes que han sido congelados y abstenerse de comercializarlos, por ello, constituye e implica una verdadera prohibición de contratar. Esta medida cautelar, por sí sola, no requiere el incautar los bienes (pues es el contenido propio del decomiso, como se verá más adelante) ni requieren que éstos bienes sean necesariamente inscribibles o individualizables en un primer momento. Su justificación radica en que el titular de un derecho de autor, o de una patente, marca o cualquiera de los derechos de propiedad industrial “no le basta con la reacción mediata del ordenamiento jurídico, sino que precisa de una reacción inmediata para que no se le ocasione un perjuicio irreparable, que el legislador presume por el hecho de explotar la patente o realizar actos preparativos serios y efectivos con esta finalidad.” PEREZ DAUDI (Vicente). Las Medidas Cautelares en el Proceso de Propiedad Industrial, Barcelona, Bosch, 1996, p.186. Esta medida cautelar es de naturaleza autosatisfactiva o anticipativa, indudablemente, ya que busca una finalidad que también puede hallarse dentro de las pretensiones principales del proceso principal, el cual es el cese de la actividad que constituya una infracción a la normativa en esta materia. Pero su finalidad no queda ahí, pues cumple con una doble función: por un lado evita el riesgo de una imposibilidad de ejecución específica de la sentencia, menoscabada por la conducta de competencia desleal y por otro lado, un daño de difícil reparación por la dificultad de valorizar y cuantificar los daños, aunque sean indemnizables. En este tipo de medida cautelar típica, el presupuesto de peligro de demora constituye cualquier afectación al derecho de propiedad industrial, tipificados también por el legislador, en el artículo 28 de la LPODPI, que los denomina como actos de competencia desleal, los cuales son: “Además de los actos señalados en el artículo 17 de la Ley de promoción de la competencia y defensa efectiva del consumidor, N° 7472, de 20 de diciembre de 1994, y sus reformas, se considera desleal todo acto realizado en el ejercicio de una actividad mercantil o con motivo de ella, contrario a los usos y las prácticas honestas en materia comercial. Asimismo, constituyen actos de competencia desleal, entre otros, los siguientes: a) Toda conducta tendiente a inducir a error respecto de la procedencia, la naturaleza, el modo de fabricación, la aptitud para el empleo o consumo, la cantidad u otras características de los productos o servicios, para aprovechar los derechos de un titular del derecho, protegidos por esta Ley. b) Toda conducta tendiente a reproducir, sin autorización del propietario, marcas, distintivos y cualquier otro elemento protegido en beneficio de su legítimo propietario, para aprovechar, a escala comercial, los resultados del esfuerzo y prestigio ajenos. c) Cualquier uso de un signo cuyo registro esté prohibido conforme a los incisos k) y q) del artículo 7 de la Ley de marcas y signos distintivos, N° 7978, de 6 de enero de 2000. d) El uso, en el comercio, de un signo cuyo registro esté prohibido según los incisos c), d), e), g) y h) del artículo 8 de la Ley de marcas y signos distintivos, N° 7978, de 6 de enero de 2000.” A pesar de encontrarse tipificadas las infracciones, como presupuesto fáctico para el decreto de esta medida, debemos tomar en cuenta el tecnicismo en que cada una de estas infracciones pueden suscitarse en el caso concreto. La casuística es variadísima en un mundo globalizado, donde las formas de comercio y propaganda se dan en una forma cada vez más sofisticada al ritmo de los avances tecnológicos y mucho más rápido que el dictado de una medida cautelar, o peor aún, de una sentencia final. En estos casos, esta medida autosatisfactiva o anticipativa debe cumplir con el otro presupuesto: la apariencia o verosimilitud de buen derecho o fumus boni iuris con la acreditación del solicitante como titular de los derechos de propiedad industrial. Recordemos que en este tipo de medidas, la pretensión cautelar es similar al de la principal, no hay correlatividad por esta identidad de pretensiones, pero, no significan la inconstitucionalidad de estas medidas, pues son previstas por el legislador, para tutela de casos urgentes de un daño irreparable, que, al final de cuentas, es lo que procura evitar la ley proscribiendo las acciones con la calidad de infracciones.-" (Tribunal Agrario, No. 173F-11 de las 15:10 horas del 22 de febrero del 2011) . En dicho caso, el tribunal analizó las medidas cautelares en un proceso sumario de competencia desleal, por la utilización de signos distintivos, conflicto entre dos empresa agroindustriales.

VIII.- Juicio de verosimilitud y presupuestos.- El caso que ahora nos ocupa, a diferencia del citado en el considerando anterior, está referido más bien a la aparente competencia desleal entre dos empresas fitomejoradoras de variedades de semillas, en particular de girasol, tema en el cual la parte actora SAKATA CEN TROAMERICA S.A. solicita las medidas cautelares, por considerar que los demandados, Laura Flores Trejos y Yo Arita, ex-empleados de la actora, crearon una empresa denominada Florarte del Sol S.A., mediante la cual están aparentemente, produciendo y comercializando semillas de girasol, de una variedad idéntica a la de SAKATA CENTROAMERICANA S.A., procurando, incluso, atraer parte de la clientela de ésta última empresa. De los elementos probatorios aportados al proceso, este Tribunal concluye en un juicio de verosimilitud positivo, o favorable a la actora, en relación a la apariencia de buen derecho, que es solo eso, la apariencia, vinculando a una eventual titularidad del derecho de propiedad intelectual que reclama, presuntamente reconocido por los demandados en cláusulas contractuales previas a este proceso judicial, también vinculadas con aparentes cláusulas de confidencialidad. Véase, al efecto, la traducción oficial, del documento del 29 de abril de 1999, puntos 2 y 3 (folio 9), en relación con los compromisos asumidos por el co-demadado, Yo Arita; así como el documento del 21 de setiembre, denominado "Acuerdo de Confidencialidad y de Derechos de Propiedad", aparentemente reconocidos por Laura Flores Trejos en los puntos 2 y 3 a favor de SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. (folio 23 y 24), así como la nota aparentemente enviada por la empresa Sakata, el 14 de setiembre del 2007 (folio 26) luego de su renuncia recordándole las cláusulas de dicho documento. Esa apariencia, se vincula, además, con otros elementos de juicio que hacen presumir la posible existencia de una competencia desleal entre empresas competidoras en el mejoramiento, producción y comercialización de variedades de girasol, lo cual se evidencia en las copias de correos electrónicos enviados por Yo Arita, el 18 de octubre del 2007, en donde se hace referencia a su labor de reproducción de Girasol en SAKATA, ofreciendo la variedad de Girasol llamada #101 (folio 4), así como el correo electrónico del 24 de setiembre del 2007 y del 15 de setiembre del 2007 (folios 5 y 6), presentándose como Director General de Florarte del Sol S.A. Es aquí donde se sustenta el fundado temor, de que la empresa demandada, provoque esa competencia desleal, lo cual está relacionado con el peligro en la demora -lamentablemente esta medida cautelar se ha retrazado-, por cuanto también existen elementos para determinar que la demandada Florarte está ofreciendo a clientes la especi sunflower '101' (folios 1 y 2), que es aparentemente, una variedad ofertada y vendida por Sakata (contrástesen, los folios 19 a 21). De ahí que existen los elementos de juicio necesarios para atender la medida cautelar que, como bien lo indica la parte recurrente, es una medida típica que encuentra su sustento en las normas de la legislación especial relacionadas con la observancia de la propiedad intelectual, la tutela del consumidor, y la protección de variedades vegetales. La vía sumaria, como bien lo aduce el recurrente, y en particular la tutela cautelar, es el único medio procesal para que judicialmente se obligue a los aparentes competidores desleales a suspender la actividad de producción y comercialización, ante el fundado temor de que le puedan provocar a la accionante un daño en la propiedad intelectual de su empresa, de imposible o difícil reparación. Sin duda alguna, en este caso existe una correspondencia directa entre el objeto el proceso y la medida cautelar típica solicitada. Por otra parte, es importante dejar claro, tanto a la parte actora, como a la parte demandada, que será en la sentencia de fondo, en donde se defina a quién corresponde o no la titularidad de la propiedad intelectual que se reclama, o si ha existido o no competencia desleal. La medida cautelar tiene como propósito anticipar, con un juicio de valor aproximado, los eventuales efectos de una sentencia estimatoria, sin que ello signifique, necesariamente, que se deba acoger la demanda en sentencia. Justamente por esa razón, la legislación especial somete la adopción de éstas medidas a criterios de proporcionalidad, razonabilidad, y quien solicite la medida debe otorgar garantía suficiente, antes de que se adopte de manera efectiva, para proteger al supuesto infractor y así evitar abusos (ver artículos 3 de la Ley de Observancia 34 y 35 de la Ley de Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales. Finalmente, este Tribunal no puede dejar de pronunciarse sobre los argumentos de la parte demandada, en el sentido de que no se ha demostrado la "titularidad de la propiedad intelectual", y siendo ese el presupuesto para adoptarla, no se podría conceder. Sin embargo, debe indicarse con claridad, que en este caso hay elementos contractuales y suficientes documentos que permiten dictar el juicio de similitud favorable a la empresa actora, tal y como se explicó más arriba. Una cosa es la inscripción formal, y de carácter administrativo, de un derecho de propiedad intelectual, en relación con una variedad genética, y otra es su reconocimiento expreso entre sujetos de carácter privado, incluso mediante aparentes cláusulas de confidencialidad. Además, debe tomarse en consideración, que la Ley de Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales, fue promulgada en nuestro país hasta el 28 de febrero del 2008, y su reglamento, publicado hasta enero del 2010, siendo la Oficina Nacional de Semillas la encargada de regularizar dichos trámites para obtener la inscripción respectiva. Sin embargo, por los compromisos asumidos por Costa Rica, en Tratados Internacionales Anteriores (solo a manera de ejemplo, el Convenio Centroamericano de protección de la propiedad industrial, el ADPIC, el Convenio UPOV), así como otras leyes especiales (Consumidor, Marcas y otros Signos Distintivos, Observancia de la Propiedad Intelectual), es evidente que ya existían normas que otorgaban una protección cautelar especial, como lo reconoció la misma Sala Constitucional en la Sentencia la Sala Constitucional, en Voto No. 355-95 de las17:33 horas del 18 de enero de 1995.- IX.- En virtud de lo antes expuesto, y de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 17 de la Ley de Protección del Consumidor, 3, 4 y 5 de la Ley de Procedimientos de Observancia de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual, así como los numerales 34, 35 y 36 de la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales, se revoca la resolución del Juzgado Agrario de San José, parcialmente, en cuanto rechazó la solicitud de suspensión de los actos contra los cuales se relama. En consecuencia, se ordena al a-quo: Emitir de inmediato una orden de suspensión de la producción, empaque y venta de semillas de especies de girasol lisianthus y dragón que pudieran estar realizando los demandados Arita y Flores, ya sea a nombre personal o a través de su empresa Florarte del Sol S.A., principalmente en cuanto a la producción, comercialización de la especie '101'.- A fin de garantizar eventuales daños y perjuicios y proteger al supuesto infractor, se fija una causión o contracautela por un monto de cuatro millones de colones, los cuales deberán ser depositados a la cuenta del Juzgado Agrario, dentro de los ocho días siguientes a la firmeza de esta resolución.

II.- Recurso de la parte actora.- La parte actora se muestra disconforme con el rechazo de la solicitud de ordenar el cese de la producción, empaque y venta de semillas de girasol, lisianthyus y dragón, recordando que el asunto fue presentado como un proceso civil, a fin de proteger la propiedad intelectual e industrial, y evitar la práctica de competencia desleal, conforme a las normas que rigen esa materia. Si bien se determinó que debía seguir en vía sumaria, debe basarse en el artículo 17 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del consumidor, pues se trata de actos contrarios a las normas de corrección y buenos usos mercantiles, por lo que solicita un cese de producción en sede agraria como medida precautoria, lo cual no es temerario ni desmesurado, sino que más bien es una medida necesaria para la tutela efectiva de los derechos de SAKATA, que busca evitar un daño mayor. La vía sumaria, aduce, es el único medio procesal para que judicialmente se obligue a los competidores desleales a suspender la actividad ilícita, en daño de la propiedad intelectual de su empresa. La demanda, aduce, tiene apariencia de buen derecho, y existe un peligro de los daños provocados, por la explotación de su propiedad intelectual por terceros ajenos a al empresa. La medida cautelar solicitada, aduce, no es atípica en materia de propiedad intelectual. Los demandados producen, señala, usando propiedad intelectual que no es de su propiedad, pues la producción de Flores y Arita, a través de su compañía se basa en conocimientos adquiridos cuando ambos trabajaban para SAKATA, por lo que existe una correspondencia directa entre el objeto del proceso y la medida solicitada. Por ello solicitan el embargo de los bienes productivos de los demandados y la suspensión de toda actividad productiva (ver folios 204-208).

III.- Recurso de la parte demandada.- El apoderado de Laura Flores Trejos (ver folio 197) Yo Arita y Florarte del Sol S.A. apeló aduciendo que de la prueba ofrecida por la parte actora, no se denota titularidad de uno o varios secretos industriales presuntamente infringidos por sus representados, o depósito alguno ante el Registro de Propiedad industrial. Las medidas, aduce, fueron ordenadas de manera arbitraria porque no presentan estrecha relación con la eficacia del fallo estimatorio. La actora, aduce no comprueba que la actividad de su representados pueda manifestar peligro para Sakata, pues esta no demuestra titularidad de la creación industrial, y tampoco ha especificado los supuestos daños sufridos. Por ello, a su juicio, no se cumplen los presupuestos para ordenar el embargo preventivo de bienes. Por ello solicita se revoque la resolución y se rechace la medida cautelar solicitada, al exceder los poderes del Juez (ver folios 213-215) IV- Consideraciones de carácter procesal.- En primer lugar, debe indicarse que la resolución recurrida, sin bien es cierto acogió la medida cautelar típica solicitada por la parte actora, de embargo preventivo, en la parte dispositiva del Por Tanto, no indicó expresamente qué es lo que acoge, lo cual podría considerarse un vicio de nulidad, dado que el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, en relación al 155 del Código Procesal Civil, exigen en el por tanto pronunciamientos concretos. Pese a lo anterior, como ninguna de las partes invocó el vicio, no es procedente que este Tribunal declare a estas alturas procesales la nulidad por la nulidad misma. Máxime que las partes combaten aspectos de fondo y no de forma. En consecuencia. En segundo lugar, la parte actora, recurrente, pretende volver a discutir la naturaleza (agraria o civil) de este proceso sumario de competencia desleal. Asunto que está sobradamente precluído, pues la Sala Primera de Casación, con buen tino, atendiendo a la especialidad de la materia, indicó con claridad, que este asunto debía ser del conocimiento de la Jurisdicción Agraria especializada, criterio que ha reiterado ya en otros casos similares. No es cierto que la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia o la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual le otorguen una competencia exclusiva a la Jurisdicción Civil para conocer de estos asuntos, máxime cuando se trata de la producción y protección de variedades genéticas y su comercialización. En tercer lugar, le llama la atención a este Tribunal, al Juez de Primera instancia, por cuanto hace una cita doctrinal, indicando solamente el nombre del autor, sin reseñar la fuente o el libro empleado, pero no relaciona la referida cita con el caso concreto, ni deslinda la naturaleza de las medidas cautelares que está resolviendo. Mucho menos hace referencia a las normas jurídicas, a los criterios de hecho, o de equidad (como lo exige el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), respecto de las restantes medidas cautelares. Es decir, no analiza ningún elemento de los aportados al proceso, y simplemente las rechaza argumentando que su adopción sería anticipar criterio. Pese a lo anterior, como se expuso más arriba, a nada conduciría una nulidad, por esa carencia de lo resuelto, dado que las partes se limitan a aspectos de fondo que se procederá a resolver de inmediato.

V.- Reclamos de la parte demandada.- El agravio de la parte demandada es totalmente improcedente, por cuanto el artículo 33 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria establece claramente que "Cuando se juzgue necesario para asegurar los resultados del juicio, la parte interesada podrá solicitar el arraigo o el embargo preventivo...El juez debe limitar el embargo a los bienes que sean indispensables para garantizar el derecho del embargante." En este caso, la parte actora garantizó el embargo, depositando el 25%, de la estimación (para eventuales daños y perjuicios). Aduce la parte demandada que se dictó la medida arbitrariamente, sin que la actora presentara título o demostrara su propiedad industrial. Sin embargo, ello no es de recibo, porque el embargo es una medida típica, que requiere únicamente del depósito para practicarlo, y justamente la garantía sirve para cubrir eventuales daños y perjuicios. Sobre la constitucionalidad de dichas medidas, la Sala Constitucional, en Voto No. 355-95 de las17:33 horas del 18 de enero de 1995, a ratificado la validez de la aplicación del embargo y otras medidas cautelares, con el fin de asegurar los eventuales daños y perjuicios, con el fin de proteger adecuadamente los derechos del actor, del público consumidor y de los competidores, entre los cuales se incluye el embargo preventivo, haciendo alución al artículo 68 del Convenio Centroamericano para la Protección de la Propiedad Industrial. Lo único que debe acoger el Tribunal como reclamo, es que el embargo debe limitarse a los bienes que sean absolutamente indispensables para garantizar el derecho del embargante, en consecuencia se confirma lo resuelto, en ese extremo, con la salvedad indicada.

VI.- Agravios de la parte actora.- La parte actora se muestra disconforme con el rechazo de la solicitud de ordenar el cese de la producción, empaque y venta de semillas de girasol, lisianthyus y dragón, para evitar la práctica de competencia desleal, conforme a las normas que rigen esa materia, en particular el artículo 17 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del consumidor. Si bien es cierto, la referida norma indicada por el recurrente hace referencia a la competencia desleal y los actos prohibidos entre distintos tipos de empresas, que se consideran como desleales, no es en ella donde se regulan las medidas cautelares en esta materia. Dichas medidas cautelares, se regulan expresamente en la Ley de Procedimientos de Observancia de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual, No. 8039, del 11 de octubre del 2000, y, para el caso en estudio, en la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales NO. 8631 del 28 de febrero del 2008, reglamentada por Decreto Ejecutivo No. 35677-MAG, del 19 de noviembre del año 2009 (Publicado en La Gaceta No. 6 del 11 de enero 2010). Como ambas regulaciones legales son idénticas, transcribimos la Ley de Obtenciones Vegetales las normas de interés:"ARTÍCULO 34.- Adopción de medidas cautelares Antes de iniciar un proceso por infracción de un derecho de obtención vegetal, durante su transcurso o en la fase de ejecución, la autoridad judicial competente o la Ofina, según corresponda, adoptará las medidas cautelares adecuadas y suficientes para evitarle una lesión grave y de difícil reparación al titular del derecho, y garantizar, provisionalmente, la efectividad del acto final o de la sentencia. Una medida cautelar solo se ordenará cuando quien la pida acredite ser el titular del derecho o su representante. La autoridad judicial o la Ofinase requerirá que quien solicite la medida otorgue garantía suficiente, antes de que esta se dicte para proteger al supuesto infractor y evitar abusos. ARTÍCULO 35.- Proporcionalidad de la medida Toda decisión que resuelva la solicitud de adopción de medidas cautelares, deberá considerar tanto los intereses de terceros como la proporcionalidad entre los efectos de la medida, así como los daños y perjuicios que esta pueda provocar. ARTÍCULO 36.- Medidas a) Podrán ordenarse, entre otras, las siguientes medidas cautelares: b) El cese inmediato de los actos que constituyen la infracción. c) El embargo de las variedades falsificadas o ilegales. d) La suspensión del despacho aduanero de las variedades referidas en el inciso b) anterior. e) La caución, por el presunto infractor, de una fianza o de otra garantía suficiente." Como puede observarse, es factible adoptar medidas cautelares dentro de procesos sumarios en donde se pretende tutelar derechos de propiedad intelectual, o cuando se produzcan actos de competencia desleal. Sobre este tema, ya el Tribunal ha tenido la oportunidad de profundizar en una resolución reciente en la cual se indicó: "IV.- Sobre el Sistema Gradual de Medidas Cautelares Típicas en materia de propiedad industrial y competencia desleal: La Ley de Procedimientos de Observancia de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual (en adelante LPODPI) y los artículos 17 y 61 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor regulan cuatro medidas cautelares típicas en esta materia: la Prohibición de Innovar y/o Contratar; el Decomiso o Secuestro Precautorio de Bienes, la Suspensión del Despacho Aduanero de Mercancías, Materiales o Medios Falsificados o ilegales y la Fianza. Ello por disposición del artículo quinto, el cual indica: “ARTÍCULO 5. Medidas. Podrán ordenarse, entre otras, las siguientes medidas cautelares: a) El cese inmediato de los actos que constituyen la infracción. b) El embargo de las mercancías falsificadas o ilegales. c) La suspensión del despacho aduanero de las mercancías, materiales o medios referidos en el inciso b). d) La caución, por el presunto infractor, de una fianza u otra garantía suficiente.” Vistas las medidas cautelares solicitadas y acogidas en este caso en específico, conviene analizar la naturaleza, contenido, presupuestos y efectos de las dos primeras. En este tipo de medidas se pretende satisfacer, en forma anticipada, sea total o parcialmente, la pretensión de fondo del actor. Se denominan medidas anticipativas o autosatisfactivas. Es por ello que en estas medidas el peligro de demora tiene un factor determinante, a tal punto que el legislador ha previsto este tipo de medidas, como excepción a la correlatividad entre la pretensión cautelar y principal, ya que como ha sostenido la más reciente doctrina procesal argentina: “la procedencia de las medidas autosatisfactivas está supeditada a la concurrencia simultánea de circunstancias infrecuentes derivadas de la urgencia impostergable en la que el factor tiempo y la prontitud aparecen como perentorios”. GALDOS (Jorge Mario). “El Contenido y el Continente de las Medidas Autosatisfactivas”, en: PEYRANO (Jorge Walter) y otros. Medidas Autosatisfactivas, Buenos Aires, Rubinzal-Culzoni, 2002, p.61. Se ha cuestionado estas medidas pues significa una ejecución anticipada de la sentencia a través de su decreto. Sin embargo, dado que este tipo de medidas se dan en forma típica, como autorización del legislador para casos urgentes, de anteceder la ejecución al conocimiento, por lo que requieren que el fumus boni iuris sea demostrado plenamente. Ejemplo de estas medidas las tenemos no solo en materia de propiedad intelectual, sino también en materia de familia, como lo son las medidas de violencia doméstica y la pensión provisional de alimentos, en civil, como el embargo preventivo en el proceso monitorio y la suspensión de obra nueva en vía interdictal; y en penal un claro ejemplo es la prisión preventiva. En todos estos casos, el legislador tipifica que para ciertas situaciones concretas, el juez puede dictar medidas cautelares típicas permitiéndole, en aras de proteger lo cautelado, aplicar anticipativa lo que podría deducirse en una eventual sentencia estimatoria.- VII.- Sobre la medida cautelar típica de Prohibición de Innovar y/o Contratar: Contenida en el artículo 5 inciso a) de la LPODPI, y denominada normativamente como "cese inmediato de los actos que constituyen la infracción"; es mejor conocida en el derecho comparado como "prohibición de contratar y/o innovar"; ya que “en virtud de ella se ordena a una de las partes que se abstenga de celebrar uno o más contratos determinados respecto de los bienes litigiosos o que han sido objeto de embargo”. DIEZ SOLIMINE (Omar Luis). Medidas Cautelares sobre Automotores, Buenos Aires, Astrea, 1999, p.153. De conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 61 de la Ley 7472, procede esta medida cuando hay indicio claro de que hay mercadería ilegal, adulterada, vencida, o que lleve a engaño a los consumidores o ponga en peligro de ocasionar una lesión grave y de difícil reparación al titular del derecho de propiedad industrial afectado. La prohibición de contratar es una forma especial de la prohibición de innovar, esta medida cautelar se aplica con la prevención administrativa o con la notificación de la resolución judicial que ordena este congelamiento, teniendo el afectado que “evacuar del mostrador o stand” los bienes que han sido congelados y abstenerse de comercializarlos, por ello, constituye e implica una verdadera prohibición de contratar. Esta medida cautelar, por sí sola, no requiere el incautar los bienes (pues es el contenido propio del decomiso, como se verá más adelante) ni requieren que éstos bienes sean necesariamente inscribibles o individualizables en un primer momento. Su justificación radica en que el titular de un derecho de autor, o de una patente, marca o cualquiera de los derechos de propiedad industrial “no le basta con la reacción mediata del ordenamiento jurídico, sino que precisa de una reacción inmediata para que no se le ocasione un perjuicio irreparable, que el legislador presume por el hecho de explotar la patente o realizar actos preparativos serios y efectivos con esta finalidad.” PEREZ DAUDI (Vicente). Las Medidas Cautelares en el Proceso de Propiedad Industrial, Barcelona, Bosch, 1996, p.186. Esta medida cautelar es de naturaleza autosatisfactiva o anticipativa, indudablemente, ya que busca una finalidad que también puede hallarse dentro de las pretensiones principales del proceso principal, el cual es el cese de la actividad que constituya una infracción a la normativa en esta materia. Pero su finalidad no queda ahí, pues cumple con una doble función: por un lado evita el riesgo de una imposibilidad de ejecución específica de la sentencia, menoscabada por la conducta de competencia desleal y por otro lado, un daño de difícil reparación por la dificultad de valorizar y cuantificar los daños, aunque sean indemnizables. En este tipo de medida cautelar típica, el presupuesto de peligro de demora constituye cualquier afectación al derecho de propiedad industrial, tipificados también por el legislador, en el artículo 28 de la LPODPI, que los denomina como actos de competencia desleal, los cuales son: “Además de los actos señalados en el artículo 17 de la Ley de promoción de la competencia y defensa efectiva del consumidor, N° 7472, de 20 de diciembre de 1994, y sus reformas, se considera desleal todo acto realizado en el ejercicio de una actividad mercantil o con motivo de ella, contrario a los usos y las prácticas honestas en materia comercial. Asimismo, constituyen actos de competencia desleal, entre otros, los siguientes: a) Toda conducta tendiente a inducir a error respecto de la procedencia, la naturaleza, el modo de fabricación, la aptitud para el empleo o consumo, la cantidad u otras características de los productos o servicios, para aprovechar los derechos de un titular del derecho, protegidos por esta Ley. b) Toda conducta tendiente a reproducir, sin autorización del propietario, marcas, distintivos y cualquier otro elemento protegido en beneficio de su legítimo propietario, para aprovechar, a escala comercial, los resultados del esfuerzo y prestigio ajenos. c) Cualquier uso de un signo cuyo registro esté prohibido conforme a los incisos k) y q) del artículo 7 de la Ley de marcas y signos distintivos, N° 7978, de 6 de enero de 2000. d) El uso, en el comercio, de un signo cuyo registro esté prohibido según los incisos c), d), e), g) y h) del artículo 8 de la Ley de marcas y signos distintivos, N° 7978, de 6 de enero de 2000.” A pesar de encontrarse tipificadas las infracciones, como presupuesto fáctico para el decreto de esta medida, debemos tomar en cuenta el tecnicismo en que cada una de estas infracciones pueden suscitarse en el caso concreto. La casuística es variadísima en un mundo globalizado, donde las formas de comercio y propaganda se dan en una forma cada vez más sofisticada al ritmo de los avances tecnológicos y mucho más rápido que el dictado de una medida cautelar, o peor aún, de una sentencia final. En estos casos, esta medida autosatisfactiva o anticipativa debe cumplir con el otro presupuesto: la apariencia o verosimilitud de buen derecho o fumus boni iuris con la acreditación del solicitante como titular de los derechos de propiedad industrial. Recordemos que en este tipo de medidas, la pretensión cautelar es similar al de la principal, no hay correlatividad por esta identidad de pretensiones, pero, no significan la inconstitucionalidad de estas medidas, pues son previstas por el legislador, para tutela de casos urgentes de un daño irreparable, que, al final de cuentas, es lo que procura evitar la ley proscribiendo las acciones con la calidad de infracciones.-" (Tribunal Agrario, No. 173F-11 de las 15:10 horas del 22 de febrero del 2011) . En dicho caso, el tribunal analizó las medidas cautelares en un proceso sumario de competencia desleal, por la utilización de signos distintivos, conflicto entre dos empresa agroindustriales.

VIII.- Juicio de verosimilitud y presupuestos.- El caso que ahora nos ocupa, a diferencia del citado en el considerando anterior, está referido más bien a la aparente competencia desleal entre dos empresas fitomejoradoras de variedades de semillas, en particular de girasol, tema en el cual la parte actora SAKATA CEN TROAMERICA S.A. solicita las medidas cautelares, por considerar que los demandados, Laura Flores Trejos y Yo Arita, ex-empleados de la actora, crearon una empresa denominada Florarte del Sol S.A., mediante la cual están aparentemente, produciendo y comercializando semillas de girasol, de una variedad idéntica a la de SAKATA CENTROAMERICANA S.A., procurando, incluso, atraer parte de la clientela de ésta última empresa. De los elementos probatorios aportados al proceso, este Tribunal concluye en un juicio de verosimilitud positivo, o favorable a la actora, en relación a la apariencia de buen derecho, que es solo eso, la apariencia, vinculando a una eventual titularidad del derecho de propiedad intelectual que reclama, presuntamente reconocido por los demandados en cláusulas contractuales previas a este proceso judicial, también vinculadas con aparentes cláusulas de confidencialidad. Véase, al efecto, la traducción oficial, del documento del 29 de abril de 1999, puntos 2 y 3 (folio 9), en relación con los compromisos asumidos por el co-demadado, Yo Arita; así como el documento del 21 de setiembre, denominado "Acuerdo de Confidencialidad y de Derechos de Propiedad", aparentemente reconocidos por Laura Flores Trejos en los puntos 2 y 3 a favor de SAKATA CENTROAMERICA S.A. (folio 23 y 24), así como la nota aparentemente enviada por la empresa Sakata, el 14 de setiembre del 2007 (folio 26) luego de su renuncia recordándole las cláusulas de dicho documento. Esa apariencia, se vincula, además, con otros elementos de juicio que hacen presumir la posible existencia de una competencia desleal entre empresas competidoras en el mejoramiento, producción y comercialización de variedades de girasol, lo cual se evidencia en las copias de correos electrónicos enviados por Yo Arita, el 18 de octubre del 2007, en donde se hace referencia a su labor de reproducción de Girasol en SAKATA, ofreciendo la variedad de Girasol llamada #101 (folio 4), así como el correo electrónico del 24 de setiembre del 2007 y del 15 de setiembre del 2007 (folios 5 y 6), presentándose como Director General de Florarte del Sol S.A. Es aquí donde se sustenta el fundado temor, de que la empresa demandada, provoque esa competencia desleal, lo cual está relacionado con el peligro en la demora -lamentablemente esta medida cautelar se ha retrazado-, por cuanto también existen elementos para determinar que la demandada Florarte está ofreciendo a clientes la especi sunflower '101' (folios 1 y 2), que es aparentemente, una variedad ofertada y vendida por Sakata (contrástesen, los folios 19 a 21). De ahí que existen los elementos de juicio necesarios para atender la medida cautelar que, como bien lo indica la parte recurrente, es una medida típica que encuentra su sustento en las normas de la legislación especial relacionadas con la observancia de la propiedad intelectual, la tutela del consumidor, y la protección de variedades vegetales. La vía sumaria, como bien lo aduce el recurrente, y en particular la tutela cautelar, es el único medio procesal para que judicialmente se obligue a los aparentes competidores desleales a suspender la actividad de producción y comercialización, ante el fundado temor de que le puedan provocar a la accionante un daño en la propiedad intelectual de su empresa, de imposible o difícil reparación. Sin duda alguna, en este caso existe una correspondencia directa entre el objeto el proceso y la medida cautelar típica solicitada. Por otra parte, es importante dejar claro, tanto a la parte actora, como a la parte demandada, que será en la sentencia de fondo, en donde se defina a quién corresponde o no la titularidad de la propiedad intelectual que se reclama, o si ha existido o no competencia desleal. La medida cautelar tiene como propósito anticipar, con un juicio de valor aproximado, los eventuales efectos de una sentencia estimatoria, sin que ello signifique, necesariamente, que se deba acoger la demanda en sentencia. Justamente por esa razón, la legislación especial somete la adopción de éstas medidas a criterios de proporcionalidad, razonabilidad, y quien solicite la medida debe otorgar garantía suficiente, antes de que se adopte de manera efectiva, para proteger al supuesto infractor y así evitar abusos (ver artículos 3 de la Ley de Observancia 34 y 35 de la Ley de Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales. Finalmente, este Tribunal no puede dejar de pronunciarse sobre los argumentos de la parte demandada, en el sentido de que no se ha demostrado la "titularidad de la propiedad intelectual", y siendo ese el presupuesto para adoptarla, no se podría conceder. Sin embargo, debe indicarse con claridad, que en este caso hay elementos contractuales y suficientes documentos que permiten dictar el juicio de similitud favorable a la empresa actora, tal y como se explicó más arriba. Una cosa es la inscripción formal, y de carácter administrativo, de un derecho de propiedad intelectual, en relación con una variedad genética, y otra es su reconocimiento expreso entre sujetos de carácter privado, incluso mediante aparentes cláusulas de confidencialidad. Además, debe tomarse en consideración, que la Ley de Protección de Obtenciones Vegetales, fue promulgada en nuestro país hasta el 28 de febrero del 2008, y su reglamento, publicado hasta enero del 2010, siendo la Oficina Nacional de Semillas la encargada de regularizar dichos trámites para obtener la inscripción respectiva. Sin embargo, por los compromisos asumidos por Costa Rica, en Tratados Internacionales Anteriores (solo a manera de ejemplo, el Convenio Centroamericano de protección de la propiedad industrial, el ADPIC, el Convenio UPOV), así como otras leyes especiales (Consumidor, Marcas y otros Signos Distintivos, Observancia de la Propiedad Intelectual), es evidente que ya existían normas que otorgaban una protección cautelar especial, como lo reconoció la misma Sala Constitucional en la Sentencia la Sala Constitucional, en Voto No. 355-95 de las17:33 horas del 18 de enero de 1995.- IX.- En virtud de lo antes expuesto, y de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 17 de la Ley de Protección del Consumidor, 3, 4 y 5 de la Ley de Procedimientos de Observancia de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual, así como los numerales 34, 35 y 36 de la Ley de Protección de las Obtenciones Vegetales, se revoca la resolución del Juzgado Agrario de San José, parcialmente, en cuanto rechazó la solicitud de suspensión de los actos contra los cuales se relama. En consecuencia, se ordena al a-quo: Emitir de inmediato una orden de suspensión de la producción, empaque y venta de semillas de especies de girasol lisianthus y dragón que pudieran estar realizando los demandados Arita y Flores, ya sea a nombre personal o a través de su empresa Florarte del Sol S.A., principalmente en cuanto a la producción, comercialización de la especie '101'.- A fin de garantizar eventuales daños y perjuicios y proteger al supuesto infractor, se fija una causión o contracautela por un monto de cuatro millones de colones, los cuales deberán ser depositados a la cuenta del Juzgado Agrario, dentro de los ocho días siguientes a la firmeza de esta resolución.”